[184584] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: /27 the new /24
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeremy Austin)
Thu Oct 8 23:27:35 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20151008232550.GA22470@mis10.towardex.com>
From: Jeremy Austin <jhaustin@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 19:24:41 -0800
To: James Jun <james@towardex.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:25 PM, James Jun <james@towardex.com> wrote:
>
> If you want choices in your transit providers, you should get a transport
> circuit (dark, wave or EPL) to a nearby carrier hotel/data center. Once
> you do that, you will suddenly find that virtually almost everyone in the
> competitive IP transit market will provide you with dual-stacked IPv4/IPv6
> service.
>
The future is here, but it isn't evenly distributed yet. I'm in North
America, but there are no IXPs in my *state*, let alone in my *continent*
-- from an undersea fiber perspective. There is no truly competitive IP
transit market within Alaska that I am aware of. Would love to be proved
wrong. Heck, GCI and ACS (the two providers with such fiber) only directly
peered a handful of years ago.
> If you are buying DIA circuit from some $isp to your rural location that
> you call "head-end" and are expecting to receive a competitive service,
> and support for IPv6, well, then your expectations are either unreasonable,
> ignorant or both.
>
Interestingly both statewide providers *do* provide both IPv4 and IPv6
peering. The trick is to find a spot where there's true price competition.
The 3 largest statewide ISPs have fiber that meets a mere three city blocks
from one of my POPs, but there's no allowable IX. I'm looking at you, AT&T.
--
Jeremy Austin
Whitestone Power & Communications, Alaska
