Fwd: [Bp_ixps] IXPs & IPv6
FYI Best, -Michael ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Wim Degezelle <wdegezelle@drmv.be> Date: Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 4:01 PM Subject: [Bp_ixps] IXPs & IPv6 To: bp_ixps@intgovforum.org Cc: Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp> Hi All, The Best Practice Forum on IPv6 is looking at the IPv6 deployment by companies and organisations, and wants to include a paragraph on IXPs. This should be a general statement on the IPv6 readiness of IXPs in the world, and briefly discuss motivation and challenges. I found a Euro-IX statement <http://www.netnod.se/sites/default/files/Euro-IX_IPv6_press.pdf> from June 2011 that announced that all Euro-IX members are IPv6 ready and enabled. Does anyone knows of recent updates or statements on the IPv6-readines of IXPs? FYI the BPF IPv6 draft is available on google docs ( link <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z60lBcIk7U3LAFEK9V7dIQ11OWFx71zqmMAcs9uv1Hg/edit?usp=sharing> ). Thanks Wim _________________________ *Wim Degezelle* *Consultant IGF BPF IPv6* *Consultant IGF BPF on IXPs* _______________________________________________ Bp_ixps mailing list Bp_ixps@intgovforum.org http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ixps_intgovforum.org
Does anyone knows of recent updates or statements on the IPv6-readines of IXPs?
Other than that IPv6 readiness has been a complete non-issue for years in the IXP community, I can't think of anything new to add to the euro-ix statement since 2011. Nick
Thanks Nick. Sad to hear, but hopefully we can change that. Best, -Michael On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
Does anyone knows of recent updates or statements on the IPv6-readines of IXPs?
Other than that IPv6 readiness has been a complete non-issue for years in the IXP community, I can't think of anything new to add to the euro-ix statement since 2011.
Nick
Michael Oghia wrote:
Thanks Nick. Sad to hear, but hopefully we can change that.
you're misunderstanding completely! It means that ipv6 is considered to be of the same importance as ipv4 in the ixp world from the point of view of passing production traffic over the ixp fabric. As far as the IXP world is concerned, this is an excellent situation to be in. Nick
Yes! Sorry about that Nick. Rob already clarified. -Michael On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
Michael Oghia wrote:
Thanks Nick. Sad to hear, but hopefully we can change that.
you're misunderstanding completely! It means that ipv6 is considered to be of the same importance as ipv4 in the ixp world from the point of view of passing production traffic over the ixp fabric. As far as the IXP world is concerned, this is an excellent situation to be in.
Nick
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 04:28:48PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Michael Oghia wrote:
Thanks Nick. Sad to hear, but hopefully we can change that.
you're misunderstanding completely! It means that ipv6 is considered to be of the same importance as ipv4 in the ixp world from the point of view of passing production traffic over the ixp fabric. As far as the IXP world is concerned, this is an excellent situation to be in.
yeah the project is finished :)
participants (3)
-
Job Snijders -
Michael Oghia -
Nick Hilliard