Re: [SIG-IX] IPv6 Peering

[Mark Newton <newton@internode.com.au>]

On 17/03/2008, at 4:14 PM, Raphael Ho wrote:

> 1. Would you prefer:
> a. to use dual-stack on the same port/collision domain
> b. to have an entirely separate collision domain for v6 peering

Definitely (a).  Hard to see how it'd be possible to keep costs
down if we needed to deploy separate infrastructure to run IPv6.

> 2. Would you prefer:
> a. bi-lateral peering
> b. multi-lateral peering

You'll probably get different answers depending on the region you're
in when you ask the question.

North America seems settled on the bilateral model.  Asia Pacific
appears to favour the MLPA model (I'm not aware of _any_ bilateral
peering points in Australia -- even Equinix operates MLPA at Mascot)

I like the inherent simplicity of MLPA, but I can see the arguments
in favour of control from bi-lateral too.  Either alternative would
be fine.

Pick one and run with it.  Most network operators are accustomed
to both alternatives, we'll be able to work with either of them.

> It seems like everybody is doing dual-stack on the same port/collision
> domain with bilateral peering,

Everyone in North America, yes.  That's certainly what Any2 has
done with v6.

But Pipe Networks and WAIX in Australia are dual-stack MLPA.  So
it isn't hard to find contrarian examples.


Regards,

  - mark

--
Mark Newton                               Email:  newton@internode.com.au 
 (W)
Network Engineer                          Email:   
newton@atdot.dotat.org  (H)
Internode Systems Pty Ltd                 Desk:   +61-8-82282999
"Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton"  Mobile: +61-416-202-223