Peering cake... :-) i think i was a puppy when that happened and only heard about it way after the fact
did anyone eat the cake? was it tasty? Le 29 septembre 2023 20:55:00 UTC, Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> a écrit : >I have known Mike for many years. I have my disagreements with him and my >criticisms of him. > >However, HE decided to stop their free bop tunnel services due to problems >with abuse. A free service >which becomes a magnet for problems isn’t long for this world. It’s >unfortunate, but boils down to the >usual fact that vandals are the reason the rest of us can’t have nice things. >I have trouble seeing how >one can blame Mike for that. > >HE has continued to operate their free tunnel service in general and still >provides a very large number >of free tunnels. They also provide a number of other services for free and at >very reasonable prices. >I don’t see very many major providers giving back to the community to the >extent that HE does. > >At this point, if anyone should pay for IPv6 transit between Cogent and HE, >Cogent should be the >one paying as they have the (significantly) smaller and less connected IPv6 >network. Mike is willing >to peer with Cogent for free, just like any other ISP out there. He’s not >asking Cogent for free >transit. Cogent is the one with the selective peering policy. > >Owen > >Full disclosure, yes, I worked for HE for several years and I am a current HE >customer. >I am the person behind the (in)famous IPv6 Peering Cake. > > > >> On Sep 29, 2023, at 00:44, VOLKAN SALİH <volkan.salih...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Many people from big companies/networks are either member of NANOG or >> following/reading NANOG from archives. >> >> I was also going to ask if anyone / any company can sponsor (feeless) IPv4 >> /24 prefix for my educational research network? (as209395) >> >> We do not do or allow SPAM/spoofing and other illegal stuff, we have RPKI >> records and check RPKI of BGP peers. >> >> We also consider to have BGP session with HE.net <http://he.net/> and >> CogentCo in the future, so we can re-announce their single-homed prefixes to >> each other, as charity. For the good of everyone on the internet.. >> >> Mr. M.Leber from He.net <http://he.net/> also stopped feeless BGP tunnel >> service, as he has not seen financial benefit, while still talking about >> community-give-back?! And he still seeks feeless peering from CogentCo, you >> get what you give.whatever goes around comes around >> >> Thanks for reading, best regards and wishes >> >> >> >> 29.09.2023 09:57 tarihinde Vasilenko Eduard yazdı: >>> Well, it depends. >>> The question below was evidently related to business. >>> IPv6 does not have yet a normal way of multihoming for PA prefixes. >>> If IETF (and some OTTs) would win blocking NAT66, >>> Then /48 propoisiton is the proposition for PA (to support multihoming). >>> Unfortunately, it is at least a 10M global routing table as it has been >>> shown by Brian Carpenter. >>> Reminder, The IPv6 scale on all routers is 2x smaller (if people would use >>> DHCP and longer than/64 then the scale would drop 2x additionally). >>> Hence, /48 proposition may become 20x worse for scale than proposed >>> initially in this thread. >>> Eduard >>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei....@nanog.org] On >>> Behalf Of Owen DeLong via NANOG >>> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 7:11 AM >>> To: VOLKAN SALİH <volkan.salih...@gmail.com> >>> <mailto:volkan.salih...@gmail.com> >>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org> >>> Subject: Re: maximum ipv4 bgp prefix length of /24 ? >>> >>> Wouldn’t /48s be a better solution to this need? >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 28, 2023, at 14:25, VOLKAN SALİH <volkan.salih...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:volkan.salih...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> hello, >>> >>> I believe, ISPs should also allow ipv4 prefixes with length between /25-/27 >>> instead of limiting maximum length to /24.. >>> >>> I also believe that RIRs and LIRs should allocate /27s which has 32 IPv4 >>> address. considering IPv4 world is now mostly NAT'ed, 32 IPv4s are >>> sufficient for most of the small and medium sized organizations and also >>> home office workers like youtubers, and professional gamers and webmasters! >>> >>> It is because BGP research and experiment networks can not get /24 due to >>> high IPv4 prices, but they have to get an IPv4 prefix to learn BGP in IPv4 >>> world. >>> >>> What do you think about this? >>> >>> What could be done here? >>> >>> Is it unacceptable; considering most big networks that do >>> full-table-routing also use multi-core routers with lots of RAM? those >>> would probably handle /27s and while small networks mostly use default >>> routing, it should be reasonable to allow /25-/27? >>> >>> Thanks for reading, regards.. >>> > -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
