RE: IPv6 Allocation Policy

Pekka,

>> Pekka Savola wrote:
>> would use a company, globe-wide /32 address, would
>> advertising the /32 in all the locations be a problem?

> Craig A. Huegen wrote:
> Yes, it would -- if a user on the east coast of the US
> downloads something from Australia, why should we bring
> that traffic onto our network in Australia, then pay
> another (very expensive) provider to haul it over the
> private WAN to the east coast of the US?  Isn't that
> what I pay ISP's to do locally?

Yep. In the end, a specific announcement being filtered and sending the
traffic to a different entry point than it should have results in paying
three times transit for the traffic:

- Granted, transit has to be paid once. Then, if the ingress traffic
comes to the wrong location, there are two ways.

1. Backhaul the ingress traffic to the right location (typically not too
much bandwidth) then backhaul the egress return traffic to the same
point it came in. This allows skipping the replication of firewall state
over the WAN, but is 3x the cost:
a) 2x: traffic between the server and the egress point: two times.
Either this is a private ptp link that typically costs twice as much as
transit, or it is a VPN over the public Internet that indeed costs twice
the traffic since both the source and the destination pay for transit.
b) 1x egress traffic. This has to be paid anyway. The issue is the extra
2x above.

2. Backhaul the ingress traffic to the right location (typically not too
much bandwidth) and egress the traffic right at that location. Problem
with doing this is that it requires replicating firewall state, which
means 100mpbs Ethernet over OC-3 to start with or GigE over SONET for
larger setups :-(

In any case, way too much money which is why I stated before that as
long as there is a risk of filtering long prefixes it is a major issue.

Michel.


_______________________________________________
global-v6 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6