Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois?

Sun Dec 9 07:10:44 UTC 2012

> Frankly, the more I think about this, the less it's clear why someone
> like hetzner.de would actually want you to be using their native IPv6
> support, instead of the one provided by HE.net through their free
> tunnelbroker.net service.  HE has an open-peering policy (AFAIK);

Yes, HE has a one-word peering policy… "YES!"

However, that means that if hetzner peered IPv6 native with us, we
would provide them every thing you get through tunnel broker still
at no cost and without any limitations on bandwidth.

We don't artificially limit the bandwidth on tunnel broker, but, each
tunnel broker server has a single network interface that it hairpins
the v4/v6 traffic on and the bandwidth is what it is. I don't expect
that will be an issue any time soon, but for planning purposes, people
should understand that tunnel broker is a where-is-as-is service on
a best effort basis with no SLA.

We do offer production grade tunnel services for a fee and people
are welcome to contact me off-list for more information.

> which basically means that tunnelbroker.net traffic is free for
> hetzner.de, whereas for native IPv6 traffic they might have to be
> paying for transit costs, depending on the destination.  HE.net

We would really rather see such traffic come native across our peering
links as much as possible. It allows us to provide a higher quality
of service.

> probably wins, too; since being the place-to-go-for-IPv6 might make it
> easier for them to have more settlement-free peering with big transit
> providers such as AT&T (Bay-Area-wise, they still have IPv6 traffic
> going through their peering in Los Angeles).

Being a popular IPv6 peer and having so many tunnel broker users has
been a great success story for us, yes. However, in terms of how
this affects our standing for peering, I think that the effect is the
same regardless of whether we are passing the traffic from/to a peering
link or a tunnel broker.

Owen