[6bone] Re: routing concern

[Ronald van der Pol]

On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 10:27:49 -0400, John Fraizer wrote:

> 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.

This is not the problem. The problem is A_B_C_X is looping between B and C
and D_E_F_B_C_X is also looping between B and C. Changing peers from A to D
does not help.

> 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.

True. Did I say otherwise?

> > 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. 

As indicated above the problem is not with the peering. It has a lot to do
with tunnels all over the world and transit by everyone.

> 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).

How does that compare to v4?

	rvdp