[128227] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 bgp peer costs?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Tue Jul 27 14:04:03 2010
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <4C4F1A9C.4030408@rollernet.us>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:03:50 -0400
To: Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jul 27, 2010, at 1:42 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 7/27/10 10:32 AM, Schiller, Heather A (HeatherSkanks) wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>> We do not charge v4 customers anything to turn up an IPv6 tunnel. =
If
>> you hear otherwise, please feel free to drop me a line. Native v6 is
>> available in atleast 31 markets, on over 210 edge devices in 701. =
There
>> is a good chance that native v6 is available for most, or close =
enough
>> to rehome to a v6 capable device. If native isn't available you =
should
>> be offered a tunnel for free. =20
>>=20
>=20
> Although re-homing can take up to a year, and in my case, they gave up
> trying and just canceled the service.
I must say going with a provider that has a truly native network plan vs =
6PE model (as presented at NANOG) might avoid these problems.
There are likely to be a lot of people in the next 12-18 months that =
start running around trying to upgrade and bolt IPv6 to their networks, =
utilizing methods like 6PE, etc.. and this problem is likely to get =
worse before it gets better.
I'm honestly interested in what the US based DSL (incumbent) providers =
are doing for IPv6 (eg: att/bls/sbc/uverse, qwest, vz dsl). Most of the =
"ethernet" (including PON) equipment is more likely to do IPv6 =
correctly, but I'm not sure that the PPPo* DSL equipment is going to be =
quite as happy with it.
This should be interesting. I also look forward to seeing what devices =
start to keel over by software vs hardware switched IPv6 paths as =
traffic increases.
- Jared=
