Re: [SIG-IX] IPv6 Peering

[Akira Kato <kato@wide.ad.jp>]

> 1. Would you prefer:
> a. to use dual-stack on the same port/collision domain
> b. to have an entirely separate collision domain for v6 peering

I definitely prefer a. above, however, the situation might not
be easy.

NSPIXP-6, which is to be concluded on June 6th this year, has
established in 1997 (sorry, the exact date is lost from my
memory) for IPv6 only exchange. The IPv6 implementations on
commercial routers were premature, and we expected many ISPs
may "try" IPv6 with PC based router, which might not be preferred
at the production IXs. So it was established as a totally
separated entity -- this was good as we were able to
provide the port for free as it is an experimental one.

IPv6 exchange is almost the same as in IPv4. The only
difference is the neighbor discovery protocol use ethernet
multicast while IPv4 arp uses ethernet broadcast.

But I don't think many of the ISP operators prefer "dual-stack".
DIX-IE has allowed dual-stack operation for many years but only
a small number of ISPs requested us the IPv6 addresses. The
major problem here is that the operators do not like to reboot
their routers with latest versions of software. Even if the
router software do support IPv6, people seem to hasitate to
turn the IPv6 functionality on.

So a program to provide a separate port on the exchange fabric
at FastEthernet or GigabitEthernet with free or discounted price
(in the same broadcast domain) may help them, I guess.

-- Akira Kato