[6bone] Re: routing concern

[Michel Py]

> John Fraizer wrote:
> 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).


During the last 6bone meeting in Minneapolis I presented something
related to this issue:
http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/ietf53.ppt

The point that Rob makes is perfectly valid. This system where everyone
provides transit to everyone has problems. In the discussions I had with
many people, there seems to be a consensus that the current v4 tiered
structure will apply to IPv6 as well at some point, because the current
v6 peering / transit model is economically flawed.

In other words, this works because of tunnels. Tunnels are fine for
experiments, but not for production. When production-quality is
required, people will have to find native links, and this will change
the picture.

Note that I am not taking sides on the issue. There will be some peering
between pTLAs, but the general consensus is that transit will go back to
tier-1s the way it is today in v4 (comments on the slides welcomed).

Michel.