[6bone] tighter mesh and accelerating IPv6

[John Fraizer]

On Fri, 23 Aug 2002, Chuck Yerkes wrote:

> Quoting John Fraizer (tvo@EnterZone.Net):
> > On Fri, 23 Aug 2002, Pekka Savola wrote:
> > > > Of course.  But if you have *enough* peerings, you'll be able to reach
> > > > most networks in a maximum of 2 hops - and if you then apply some 
> > > > MED fiddling to mark "slow" tunnels, you can achieve pretty good results.
> > > 
> > > This leads to an "arms race"; everyone will need to get even more tunnels, 
> > > leading to even tighter spaghetti.
> >
> > No.  People who want tighter peering will seek it.  People who don't will
> > settle for what they have.  High peer counts does NOT mean bad
> > connectivity.  Peering with some joker on a 56K modem who then leaks a
> > full table to you (and you accept it) leads to bad connectivity.
> 
> "People."
> 
> You mean "people" like me who want my rather large telco monopoly
> ISP to offer IPv6 (or hell, consistent service).  No, "people" do
> not have a lot of influence.  ISPs and large business do.  When 
> Ford requires IPv6 access to their partners and contractors, ISPs
> will leap to fill that need.  When PacBell starts offering IPv6 on
> their backbone, customers can start to ask for it.  The customers
> aren't going to cause PBI to start offering it.


No.  I mean "people" like those in charge of peering for ANY site.  If a
site wants to have tight peering (tunnels or native), they will seek
it.  Otherwise, they will settle for the peers (or static routing) that
they have.



---
John Fraizer              | High-Security Datacenter Services |
EnterZone, Inc            | Dedicated circuits 64k - 155M OC3 |
http://www.enterzone.net/ | Virtual, Dedicated, Colocation    |