Re: IPv6 routing /48s

From: Jack Bates (no email)
Date: Tue Nov 18 2008 - 12:56:18 EST

  • Next message: Leo Bicknell: "Re: IPv6 routing /48s"

    Christopher Morrow wrote:
    > if you want v6 adoption... latency, path length, jitter, performance
    > all should closely match v4 specs. Expecting a US customer to be 'ok'
    > with 300ms to reach a US site 30 miles (as the crow flies) via
    > Germany... not good.
    > V6 so far doesn't have the same $$ and interest from the 'user' so
    > it's not being optomized yet. Or so it seems.

    Until the peering topology of v6 matches v4, we will continue to see
    this issue. I expect to wait until the last minute when the NSP's
    suddenly realize that they need to switch, and as my dual stack peerings
    increase, so will the QOS. At that point, the content providers will add
    AAAA and the eyeball networks will have the worst of it. M$ seems to be
    coming along fine with IPv6, but the problem we'll see is all those
    modems/routers which do not support it and probably can't with the
    minimal flash space they have. I haven't even seen good alternatives yet
    to start pushing my customers into IPv6 routers.


  • Next message: Leo Bicknell: "Re: IPv6 routing /48s"

    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs

    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD