[lacnog] Modelo de intercambio de IPv6 & IPv4 en un IXP

[Nicolas Antoniello]

Dear all,

With Netflow v9 you may easily separate IPv6 and IPv4 traffic  for analysis
and statistics.
Talking about the VLANs question, I've found that most IXPs tend to use the
"all in the same VLAN" mode... even when they give you the option to use
either of them, I believe most clients use the "all in one" model.

We have some experience with some IXPs in USA and that is the model we use
there (v4 and v6 over the same one vlan... no tags).

Regards,
Nicolas




On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 19:56, Carlos Martinez <
carlosmarcelomartinez en gmail.com> wrote:

> Can't this accounting be performed using NetFlow or similar ?
>
> I am also curious whether having different VLANs result in higher
> operational costs or not.
>
> Any one from PTT metro here ? how do they implement it ?
>
> regards
>
> Carlos
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Arturo Servin <aservin en lacnic.net> wrote:
> >
> >        Yep, I read it. Very good document.
> >
> > On 5 Jul 2011, at 16:36, Roque Gagliano wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> You may want to check RFC 5963- IPv6 Deployment in Internet Exchange
> >> Points (IXPs)
> >> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5963.txt
> >>
> >> Roque (who happened to author it)
> >
> >        I do not know that guy. =)
> >
> >        But I (at least me) would like to know about some experiences in
> deployment.
> >
> > Thanks
> > -as
> >
> >>
> >> 2011/7/5 Arturo Servin <aservin en lacnic.net>:
> >>>
> >>> What are the advantages and disadvantages of the models?
> >>> Any takers?
> >>> Thanks!
> >>> .as
> >>> On 5 Jul 2011, at 16:14, Gustavo Santos wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Here in Brazil the PTT-METRO  ( A public brazilian NAP) uses on vlan
> for
> >>> each kind of traffic ( one for v4 and one for v6)
> >>>
> >>> Gustavo Santos
> >>> Analista de Redes
> >>> CCNA , MTCNA , MTCRE, MTCINE, JUNCIA-ER
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2011/7/5 NAP COLOMBIA <admonnap en ccit.org.co>
> >>>>
> >>>> Buenos dias.
> >>>>
> >>>> Actualmente estamos desarrollando el proceso de incluir tráfico IPv6
> en
> >>>> nuestro NAP y estamos discutiendo cuál de los modelos de conexión es
> el mas
> >>>> beneficioso.
> >>>>
> >>>> El primero sería usar una VLAN con dual-stack y el otro modelo sería
> la
> >>>> creación de una nueva VLAN exclusiva para el tráfico IPv6, de tal
> manera que
> >>>> los dos tráficos (IPv4 e IPv6) queden separados.
> >>>>
> >>>> ¿Qué modelo se ha usado en los NAP de la región? y ¿Qué razones los
> >>>> llevaron a tomar esa decisión?
> >>>>
> >>>> Saludos,
> >>>> Héctor Tamayo
> >>>> NAP COLOMBIA
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> LACNOG mailing list
> >>>> LACNOG en lacnic.net
> >>>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> LACNOG mailing list
> >>> LACNOG en lacnic.net
> >>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> LACNOG mailing list
> >>> LACNOG en lacnic.net
> >>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >> At least I did something
> >> Don Draper - Mad Men
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> LACNOG mailing list
> >> LACNOG en lacnic.net
> >> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LACNOG mailing list
> > LACNOG en lacnic.net
> > https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ========================
> Carlos M. Martinez-Cagnazzo
> http://cagnazzo.name
> ========================
> _______________________________________________
> LACNOG mailing list
> LACNOG en lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
>
------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lacnog/attachments/20110802/199763f4/attachment.html>