<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>I suppose monitoring could be one. If you have two interfaces you may get the data just by SNMP without netflow.</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Another could be that resiliency. Imagine that you have a flood DDoS on v4, then your v6 interface is unaffected (unless you hace CPU or other common resource affected).</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>-as</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><div><div>On 29 Jul 2011, at 14:40, Humberto Galiza wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Hi Folks,</div><div> </div><div>I work for an ISP here in Brazil and we're working on dual-stack model (using only one vlan per client v4/v6). Ours upstream providers also works like this. In fact, I can't see any benefit using an exclusive vlan only to forward v6 traffic. Anybody else?</div>
<div><div> </div></div><div>Best regards,</div><div><br clear="all">Galiza</div><div>Computer B.Sc. (UFBA)<br></div><div><span style="font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px; border-collapse: collapse;"><br><span style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-color: rgb(84, 133, 189);"></span></span></div>
<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/7/6 Saliel Figueira Filho <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:saliel@gmail.com">saliel@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid;" class="gmail_quote">
A menos facilidad de recoger estadísticas del trafico IPv6 ? Si no ten mas que 4096 peers, no creo que los costos sean significativos...<div><br></div><font color="#888888"><div>Saliel</div></font><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Carlos Martinez <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:carlosmarcelomartinez@gmail.com" target="_blank">carlosmarcelomartinez@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid;" class="gmail_quote">Can't this accounting be performed using NetFlow or similar ?<br>
<br>
I am also curious whether having different VLANs result in higher<br>
operational costs or not.<br>
<br>
Any one from PTT metro here ? how do they implement it ?<br>
<br>
regards<br>
<br>
Carlos<br>
<div><div></div><div><br>
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Arturo Servin <<a href="mailto:aservin@lacnic.net" target="_blank">aservin@lacnic.net</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Yep, I read it. Very good document.<br>
><br>
> On 5 Jul 2011, at 16:36, Roque Gagliano wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Hi,<br>
>><br>
>> You may want to check RFC 5963- IPv6 Deployment in Internet Exchange<br>
>> Points (IXPs)<br>
>> <a href="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5963.txt" target="_blank">http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5963.txt</a><br>
>><br>
>> Roque (who happened to author it)<br>
><br>
> I do not know that guy. =)<br>
><br>
> But I (at least me) would like to know about some experiences in deployment.<br>
><br>
> Thanks<br>
> -as<br>
><br>
>><br>
>> 2011/7/5 Arturo Servin <<a href="mailto:aservin@lacnic.net" target="_blank">aservin@lacnic.net</a>>:<br>
>>><br>
>>> What are the advantages and disadvantages of the models?<br>
>>> Any takers?<br>
>>> Thanks!<br>
>>> .as<br>
>>> On 5 Jul 2011, at 16:14, Gustavo Santos wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Here in Brazil the PTT-METRO ( A public brazilian NAP) uses on vlan for<br>
>>> each kind of traffic ( one for v4 and one for v6)<br>
>>><br>
>>> Gustavo Santos<br>
>>> Analista de Redes<br>
>>> CCNA , MTCNA , MTCRE, MTCINE, JUNCIA-ER<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> 2011/7/5 NAP COLOMBIA <<a href="mailto:admonnap@ccit.org.co" target="_blank">admonnap@ccit.org.co</a>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Buenos dias.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Actualmente estamos desarrollando el proceso de incluir tráfico IPv6 en<br>
>>>> nuestro NAP y estamos discutiendo cuál de los modelos de conexión es el mas<br>
>>>> beneficioso.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> El primero sería usar una VLAN con dual-stack y el otro modelo sería la<br>
>>>> creación de una nueva VLAN exclusiva para el tráfico IPv6, de tal manera que<br>
>>>> los dos tráficos (IPv4 e IPv6) queden separados.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> ¿Qué modelo se ha usado en los NAP de la región? y ¿Qué razones los<br>
>>>> llevaron a tomar esa decisión?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Saludos,<br>
>>>> Héctor Tamayo<br>
>>>> NAP COLOMBIA<br>
>>>> --<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>> LACNOG mailing list<br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:LACNOG@lacnic.net" target="_blank">LACNOG@lacnic.net</a><br>
>>>> <a href="https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog" target="_blank">https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> LACNOG mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:LACNOG@lacnic.net" target="_blank">LACNOG@lacnic.net</a><br>
>>> <a href="https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog" target="_blank">https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog</a><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> LACNOG mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:LACNOG@lacnic.net" target="_blank">LACNOG@lacnic.net</a><br>
>>> <a href="https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog" target="_blank">https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog</a><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> At least I did something<br>
>> Don Draper - Mad Men<br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> LACNOG mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:LACNOG@lacnic.net" target="_blank">LACNOG@lacnic.net</a><br>
>> <a href="https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog" target="_blank">https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> LACNOG mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:LACNOG@lacnic.net" target="_blank">LACNOG@lacnic.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog" target="_blank">https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div><font color="#888888">--<br>
========================<br>
Carlos M. Martinez-Cagnazzo<br>
<a href="http://cagnazzo.name/" target="_blank">http://cagnazzo.name</a><br>
========================<br>
</font><div><div></div><div>_______________________________________________<br>
LACNOG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:LACNOG@lacnic.net" target="_blank">LACNOG@lacnic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog" target="_blank">https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
LACNOG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:LACNOG@lacnic.net">LACNOG@lacnic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog" target="_blank">https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>
_______________________________________________<br>LACNOG mailing list<br><a href="mailto:LACNOG@lacnic.net">LACNOG@lacnic.net</a><br><a href="https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog">https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog</a><br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>