[6bone] Re: routing concern

[John Fraizer]

On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Ronald van der Pol wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 09:28:11 -0400, John Fraizer wrote:
> 
> > If you don't want to see RIR space on your router Ronald, you can filter
> > it.  I _strongly_ disagree with having a hard seperation of production v6
> > and 6bone though.  There already exists seperation.  Production services
> > on production prefixes.  6bone experiments on 6bone prefixes.
> 
> There is a problem when production services are being reached via
> a network which is not stable (like 6bone is today). I am not saying
> it is bad that 6bone is not stable. I just think 6bone should become
> a network for doing IPv6 related experiments only, no production.

Um, it sounds like you need to get better peering, either native v6 or
better tunnel peering.  I don't see this as any different than v4.  If
your peering is $h!t, your experience is $h!t.

I am all for the 6bone as a while being more stable.  Having contacts that
actually MONITOR the 6bone list (I thought this was a requirement BTW) and
notice when people are talking about their network and REACT to this by
fixing their problems, blah blah blah.  Until that happens, if a peer is
unresponsive and crappy, depeer.  Again, just like v4.  If transit to site
X is better via A_B_C_X than via D_X, set up a route-map to pref the
A_B_C_X route.  Again, just like v4.

> > Do you really want to create an island out of the production v6
> > network?  Do you want folks on production v6 address space to not be able
> > to reach 6bone prefixes?
> 
> No, and these are not related. There can be connections to and from
> the 6bone. But the routing must be setup in a way that you never
> reach production prefixes via the 6bone (when your origin is not the
> 6bone).

You're going to be hard pressed to do this.  As Bill pointed out, there
are 3ffe::/16 prefixes being routes over native v6 links and there are
2001::/16 prefixes being routes over v6-in-v4 tunnels.

Just because a connection between two peers is in a v4-in-v4 tunnel does
NOT make that connection a "6bone" connection vs "production" connection
and native v6 peering does not mean that that particular connection is not
a "6bone" connection.

> > We're not asking people to stop experimenting.  We're asking them to do so
> > wisely.  As for scaring people away from v6, I don't see it.  As
> > confounded as it is, the 6bone is more robust then the initial v4
> > network.
> 
> I want an IPv6 network which is *at least* as reliable as the IPv4
> network is *today*.

Choose your peering partners wisely then.  No different than IPv4.

Rob from Sprint hit on something that I don't quite agree with.  He wants
to limit transit.  Coming from Sprint (no offense Rob), that makes perfect
sense.  I live on the other end of the spectrum.  The more transit
possibilities you have to a network you don't DIRECTLY peer with, the more
likely you will be able to reach that network.  Even if you DO have direct
peering with that network, having a backup route(s) to them doesn't hurt a
thing.  If people don't want backup-transit, that is their decision.  I
don't think there needs to be any broad policy change and especially not
among pTLAs.  Unless we're all going to establish direct peering between
each other (that scales just wonderful, doesn't it?) it is wise for us to
provide transit to each other (pTLA to pTLA).




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