12 Jul
2020
12 Jul
'20
4:30 a.m.
Of course it depends if you want to do IPv6 routing over our own routers, or
just leave it to the ISP to route it over internet. When you want to
do routing,
of course you need to configure viable peers to route your actual traffic
(e.g. the proposed global routers). But when you merely want to use BGP as
a distribution mechanism for whitelisted subnets and not to do the
actual routing
using that information, it is not required to have a mesh and it is
sufficient to
have some "reliable" peers that complete the connectivity around the world.
There are always some "more active" members that could offer such service,
and it could also be offered e.g. at UCSD. The essential difference with
offering some list "from the portal" is that there is no need to
manually maintain
a central database and assure its availability. Everyone can advertise
their own
prefix and make sure it is current (e.g. when the IPv6 prefix is dynamic).
Rob
On 7/12/20 12:03 AM, Nate Sales wrote:
How would you suggest structuring the neighbor
relationships here?
Would there be a bunch of route reflectors in each region, or would
this become more of a mesh topology?
Nate
KJ7DMC
On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 2:51 PM Rob Janssen via 44Net
<44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote:
> I am thinking more of using BGP to distribute the info, could be used as
> routing
> info as well but not necessarily, usually one can configure BGP to store
> the info
> in a separate routing table used only for lookup in a firewall rule or
> similar.
> Everyone only needs to advertise their own IPv6 networks, and will
> receive all
> the others from the peers. No need to put all that info in a central
> database!
>