On Sun, 2003-11-16 at 06:33, Nathan Ward wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 04:59:47PM -0500, Joe Abley wrote:
On 14 Nov 2003, at 16:53, Barry Murphy wrote:
Yeah, I already have a tunnel from Australia with a couple of /64's. I then have a php tunnel broker system where I delegate /112 's to people and a few /64's. I would be interested in peering with the F root server in Auckland, is there an application forms?
Nope, just send mail to peering(a)isc.org.
Barry, unless you peer at APE you will not be able to peer with f.root in Auckland. Unless Joe wants to set up a tunnel.. which I doubt :)
What are peoples thoughts on tunnels to APE and WIX connected machines so non APE and WIX people could readvertise thier freenet/he/'real' v6 space? I've mentioned on this list in the past that I would be happy to provide some hardware and give spare time for this purpose..
I see no problem with this. I'm happy to discuss making a port available on the APE and/or WIX for such a gateway.
It would be nice if someone could provide 'better' international v6 paths other than freenet and he, perhaps this is something that could be provided with these tunnels? Who could provide a small ammount of international v4 transit for tunnels to various places? Perhaps there would have to be cost to people wanting to recieve international v6 connectivity over these tunnels.. Just a thought anyway, it'd be nice to have..
I've just done some ping tests from a host in Oregon which is connected on both the IPv4 and IPv6 backbones back to our Wellington router which is connected via IPv4 natively and via a Freeenet6 IPv6 tunnel. Here's the results: $ ping 203.118.144.98 PING 203.118.144.98 (203.118.144.98): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 203.118.144.98: icmp_seq=0 ttl=44 time=198.271 ms 64 bytes from 203.118.144.98: icmp_seq=1 ttl=44 time=193.658 ms 64 bytes from 203.118.144.98: icmp_seq=2 ttl=44 time=189.428 ms ^C --- 203.118.144.98 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 189.428/193.786/198.271/3.611 ms $ ping6 2001:470:1f00:ffff::8fd PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2001:418:1::62 --> 2001:470:1f00:ffff::8fd 16 bytes from 2001:470:1f00:ffff::8fd, icmp_seq=0 hlim=59 time=200.105 ms 16 bytes from 2001:470:1f00:ffff::8fd, icmp_seq=1 hlim=59 time=201.242 ms 16 bytes from 2001:470:1f00:ffff::8fd, icmp_seq=2 hlim=59 time=194.456 ms ^C --- 2001:470:1f00:ffff::8fd ping6 statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 194.456/198.601/201.242/2.967 ms Doesn't look like the IPv6 tunnel is having a major performance impact there. Clearly traffic to Australia will go the long way round and that's not so good. Let's get something working here and then worry about getting native IPv6 bandwidth sorted out. If we have a number of people doing this stuff then we'll be in a better position to find a way to aggregate that demand via the international providers.