Re: [SIG-IX] IPv6 Peering

["Jake Chin" <jakechin@gmail.com>]

Hi Raphael,

I think personally dual-stack is the correct way to do it and bilateral sessions are easier to manage but ....


Google is:
> currently not doing dual-stack, so we prefer a separate port/session. VLAN is not a good idea for us.

> fine with both bi-lateral and multi-lateral sessions at the moment.

Hope to see you bring things up at the Equinix locations in Asia soon.




Also, as most will know by now, we launched http://ipv6.google.com at the recent IETF meeting and are now ready for v6 peering at AMS-IX, DIX-IE and Equinix Ashburn. For those who are interested, please contact me separately (jakechin@google.com) or send to peering@google.com.

Cheers
Jake

2008/3/17 Raphael Ho <raphael.ho@ap.equinix.com>:

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

_______________________________________________
sig-ix mailing list
sig-ix@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-ix