[6bone] Re: routing concern

[John Fraizer]

On 31 Jul 2002, Robert Kiessling wrote:

> John Fraizer <tvo@EnterZone.Net> writes:
> 
> Actually this is not true, and limiting transit does make much sense,
> for purely technical reasons. More transit in the sense of BGP
> advertisements does NOT automatically give you better connectivity.
> 
> In practice, we saw a number of cases where someone provides IPv6
> transit (e.g. advertises full BGP table to everyone), but in fact
> fails to route packets because of some misconfiguration. Such this
> "transit" caused a blackhole for you.

Um, that's not transit.  That's a misconfigured peer.  Leaking a prefix
and providing TRANSIT to a prefix are two different things folks.  When I
refer to transit, I am referring to working paths.

> On a performance issue, a transit provider with lots of tunnels across
> the world will give you short BGP paths, but not good actual paths for
> the packets.

Again, the broad brush is being used.  Each path is unique.  Granted, if
someone just blindly builds tunnels to anyone and everyone, they may very
well end up with short AS paths and lousy end-to-end performance.  There
are cases where a tunnel direct to the peer will provide better
performance.  


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