[6bone] separating IPv6 experimental from production traffic

[Pekka Savola]

On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Ronald van der Pol wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 17:52:25 -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> 
> > 2) peers notify each other whether their network is production
> >    or experimental
> 
> I think I agree with Bill that production and experimental means
> different things to different people. But this is a key question.
> We want to get rid of the many routing problems. For this, I think
> we have to look at transit providers only. So I guess we as the
> 6bone community have to come up with a list of *minimal* requirements
> for 6bone transit sites.
> 
> Let me kickoff:
> - respond to problems within 18 hours (24 hours? how about weekend?)
> - peerings with topologically close neighbours (transit or peer
>   sites) only
> - actively cleanup current peering mess
> - apply stringent prefix/AS filtering on peerings
> 
> maybe:
> - active monitoring of peerings?

Maybe section.

  - have sufficient available bandwidth (e.g. 10+ Mbit/s), with hardware
that can manage that, with a recent enough software which has no major
problems.

In any case, I don't think it's really possible to define unambiguously 
what a good transit is.. and what use is it, anyway?  Those folks probably 
don't care or think they're good.  Forgive my skepticism :-)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords