Re: [SIG-IX] IPv6 Peering

["David J. Hughes" <bambi@Hughes.com.au>]

On 17/03/2008, at 5:42 PM, Philip Smith wrote:

> 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. ;-)

I'm a very happy MLPA customer of both PIPE and Equinix.  I would  
hate to have to manage bi-lateral agreements for every AS presenting  
at the IXP's.  If I advertise my routes into the global table then  
anyone can route to me via my transit circuits.  I don't see the  
benefits of treating peering differently.  The Internet is a multi- 
lateral network and MLPA offers the same semantics but at a but more  
attractive price point.

We have already committed to making WebCentral's content available  
over v6 at PIPE IXP's in Australia when we are in a position to do  
so.  Being an existing v4 customer, we could do the same at Equinix  
if it's MLPA but not BLPA as it wouldn't be worth the time and effort.


David
...