Re: [SIG-IX] IPv6 Peering

[Raphael Ho <raphael.ho@ap.equinix.com>]

Title: Re: [SIG-IX] IPv6 Peering

Folks,

Thanks for all the input

Ishii-san from JPNAP raised a good point – if we put the v6 traffic on the same collision domain, it will get totally lost in sflow for traffic analysis purposes. I’m beginning to think that the most practical way is to have a separate vlan/collision domain for the v6 traffic and configure 802.1q on the access port if both v4/v6 is required.

We can leave the MLPA discussion for another day. My personal opinion is that the traffic volume isn’t high enough for people to worth their time in managing a completely separate set of bilateral peering for now.

Anybody has any violent reaction on the vlan idea?

Raf.

On 17/03/2008 3:42 PM, "Philip Smith" <pfs@cisco.com> wrote:

> For the folks I've worked with recently... 
>
> Raphael Ho said the following on 17/3/08 15:44: 
> > 
> > 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 
>
> a. 
>
> > 2. Would you prefer: 
> > a. bi-lateral peering 
> > b. multi-lateral peering 
>
> a. 
>
> > It seems like everybody is doing dual-stack on the same port/collision  
> > domain with bilateral peering, although I'd like to hear what you  
> > would like to see us deploy. 
>
> I think this is what makes most sense. MMLPAs are well known to kill 
> exchanges, and MLPAs haven't been too helpful in places I've seen. It's 
> the ISPs' business who they peer with, not the exchanges. ;-) 
>
> philip 

-- 

Raphael Ho
Equinix Asia Pacific
Director - Network Engineering & Operations
Direct +852 29707721
Fax +852 29705882