[6bone] RFC 2772 input from RIR space holder
Gert Doering
gert@space.net
Thu, 21 Nov 2002 18:03:54 +0100
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 04:49:58PM +0100, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 19:39, Jorgensen, Roger wrote:
[..]
> > This isn't just the view of one single sTLA holder, it's a view
> > I know is shared by many others.
>
> Many others ?
> Who are they ?
Us, for example. 2001:608::/32.
(I usually spend more time on making things work than on making noise
on mailing lists, which is why you haven't read that much from me
recently)
[..]
> The problems (ghost routes, unstability, bad performances,..) are not
> 6bone specific.
> This problems are just a pretext for don't have 6bone address in your
> routing table. This problems must be solved. Circumvent a problem is
> easy, resolve it is more hard.
>
> Currently 6bone and RIR have the same network topology (a lot of tunnels
> and very little native links) and there is not transit provider, the
> only difference beetween 6bone and RIR are address type (pTLA/sTLA) in
> routing table.
RIR space networks, at least in Germany and .NL, are strongly going to
for native IPv6 peering at various peering points (AMS-IX, DECIX, INXS).
[..]
> You will guaranty routing over tunnel ?
> Tunnels offer bad and random performance.
> You can own your fiber, control your IPv4 network, but you will have
> always the tunnel encapsulation.
>
> For provide a real production quality, you must have a native IPv6
> network without tunnels.
If the tunnel is inside your own IPv4 network, you can control the
performance nearly as well as on "native" links.
Tunnels are a much larger problem if they cross unrelated 3rd-party
networks.
> Cut 6bone and RIR will be beneficial only if RIR have a lot of native
> links and very little tunnels.
We are working on it.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 49875 (48540)
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299