Andrew Alston wrote:
Hi MacTim
Yes, by all means, I'd like to hear from those African LIRs who have some
IPv6
deployment experience especially.
We've deployed IPv6 actively and in production to at least 3 of our
universities so far (University of Cape Town, Rhodes University and CSIR are
all actively running and utilizing IPv6, as well as some of our more
utilized services, including everything on mirror.ac.za, which is also the
only ipv6 enabled in rotation Mozilla mirror at this point)
Well - Posix has since deployed IPv6 on most of our core. I did post
something on this already - and basically met a wall of silence.
I am finding that some routing devices (eg. Mikrotik) are unable to use
IPv6 natively... which is costing me.
I recently purchased a NPE-2G for a 7600 - and hope that this will
future-proof me for a while (to 'fix' the Mikrotik problem).
I'll be offering my Hosting clients and access customers with dedicated
access (digital lines) IPv6 service soon - followed by service to my
"directly accessed" (ie - they directly dial into me) dial-up customers.
I am peering and transit-ing with Native IPv6 already.
....
True... however the people who designed IPv4 came out with the concept of
classful routing as well... how much of that do we see today? I think we
need to change the mindset beyond thinking that just because something was
designed in a particular way, does not mean necessarily that the design was
perfect, and didn't have flaws in it. It's well and good to design IPv6
without P.I, but its flawed to do so without offering viable alternatives
that are accessible *when they are needed* to the problems this creates, and
unfortunately there ARE no viable alternatives to the multi-homing issue at
the moment. It may come, but its needed today, and it's not there.
These ISPs can get a sub-allocation from an LIR if they wish.
And handle multi-homing how?
This needs to be answered.
My pet example - UniForum SA - who peers at JINX (there are 14 odd ISP's
there - all very independent) and uses two transit providers - will
*not* be getting a sub-allocation from an LIR.
The PI debate: This either needs to be done before the next meeting - so
it can be voted through - or there needs to be a resolution to allow the
result of such a discussion held at the next AfriNIC to be accepted by
the community kinda on the spot. We've delayed this long enough already.
Correct, policies should be based on what the community needs. I just
don't see the
"need" here, yet. I think that revenue implications should be kept
in the back of the mind during these discussions though.
I strongly agree about the revenue comments!
In summary, from having actively deployed IPv6 from an LIR perspective, as
well as having worked for one of our customers prior to that and having
received and worked on a smaller allocation, the above are just some of
conclusions and opinions I've come to. I *wish* there was broader
discussion on these issues, both on these lists and elsewhere, and I really
appeal to the AfriNIC community, please, get involved in these discussions,
what are your opinions? What are your problems with the IPv6 P.I? How do
you view the advantages? Let's thrash this out and finally get some
resolution on it!
Just my thoughts
Thinking out the top of my head...
Why do we all need to hold full routing tables? I'd expect to see a sort
of DNS type model come up - so you look-up a route before using it...
and then just have a very small number of cached routes in the table...
throw away old routes as memory fills - etc.
Then again - there are only 700 odd IPv6 routes for now? (Growing - but
slower than IPv4)
--
. . ___. .__ Posix Systems - Sth Africa
/| /| / /__ [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Mark J Elkins, SCO ACE, Cisco CCIE
/ |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS Tel: +27 12 807 0590 Cell: +27 82 601 0496
_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
