|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> In-Reply-To: <5842A1A6-0F40-4CA0-951E-6C7D00A50A61@hopcount.ca> Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 14:55:10 -0400 To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On May 26, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Joe Abley wrote: > On 2010-05-25, at 17:40, Martin List-Petersen wrote: >=20 >> On 24/05/10 19:21, Thomas Magill wrote: >>>> =46rom the provider side, are most of you who are implementing IP6 >>> peerings running BGP over IP4 and just using IP6 address families to >>> exchange routes or doing IP6 peering? >>=20 >> Most Internet Exchanges do not allow to mix on the same transport. So >> IPv4 peering over IPv4 transport, IPv6 peering over IPv6 transport, = you >> can use the same interface though. >=20 > Most Internet Exchanges don't care what BGP protocol options = consenting neighbours decide to use, in my experience. (If they cared, = what could they do?) Don't care? I think you mean "don't know". The exchange that starts snooping my BGP session to see what I am = trading with my peer is the exchange that will lose my business. --=20 TTFN, patrick
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |