North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

  • From: James
  • Date: Wed Oct 05 20:07:53 2005

On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:17:09PM -0700, David Sinn wrote:
> So this is all well and good while some measure of V6 is tunneled, but 
> one should be wondering what these games of chicken mean to V6 when it 
> is native.  Given that most organizations won't meet the qualifications 
> to be multi-homed, stunts like this will have a greater impact then 
> this one is having today.  Doesn't exactly leave a warm fuzzy that the 
> current direction for IPv6 services is sane....

Indeed.  Unfortunately (or actually, may this is rather fortunate?) there is 
practically no money value yet in IPv6, so we may be at least a year (or more)
away from seeing the first major v6 depeering dispute.  But nevertheless, given
the imperfect state of multihoming for edge sites in IPv6, such depeering war
will be significantly more detrimental to customers who cannot justify for a
/32 or a "special infrastructure" /48 prefix allocation from the RIRs.  Let see
how multihoming proposals (e.g shim6, relaxed RIR allocation policy requests, 
etc et al) turn out in the next few months.  IPv6 operators should probably
want to pay close attention to multihoming proposals and any commercial 
developments in v6 world in the next year or two perhaps.  If multihoming
solutions don't really turn out well and v6 is appearing to become more
ubiquitous, it may be a plausible idea to start opening up your route-filters
to accept /48 prefix-lengths before the first depeering happens :)


James Jun
Infrastructure and Technology Services
TowardEX Technologies
Office +1-617-459-4051 x179 | Mobile +1-978-394-2867
[email protected] |