[v6test] Concerns about network impact

[Iljitsch van Beijnum]

On 13 jan 2008, at 15:12, Kevin Day wrote:

>> It would be great if some kind of limiting could be implemented at  
>> the side of the experiment server(s). That way, operators only need  
>> to communicate their address blocks and acceptable bandwidth  
>> figures. I believe there are web servers that can handle traffic/ 
>> user limitations.

> I thought about that, but I'm not sure how feasible it'd be. I'm  
> more than happy to blackhole any networks that ask me to, but I  
> don't know that it's any easier for me to do that than it is for  
> them to. As for rate limiting... It's possible, but tends to come  
> with a performance penalty on the server side which I'd like to  
> avoid if at all possible. I'm expecting to have our cluster crushed  
> from traffic as it is.

Hm, if I were you I'd prefer to handle this on my side rather than  
hope the ISPs do the right thing... There are of course many ways to  
make reasonably sure that only a certain amount of traffic is going in  
the direction of a given destination.

> So, in the end we set up our own 6to4 relay and announced it to the  
> world. It wasn't the easiest decision, because it ends up meaning  
> that all outbound traffic to 6to4 users is leaving our network on  
> the v4 side. I'm not ending up exercising much of the v6 network for  
> all of 6to4 access.

You only need a private relay, though...

> But, I'm guessing I'm not going to be the closest anycasted relay  
> for 95% of the world out there, so traffic coming IN to us is still  
> going to be native v6 (from our perspective anyway).

Right. The problem is, that whatever you do for 6to4, it's all going  
through one relay for outgoing traffic. For incoming traffic, it's  
going through different relays depending on the user's location.

> Your idea about using a 6to4 addressed server for 6to4 users is  
> interesting, I'll have to simulate that to make sure it's doing what  
> I think it would.

Ok, success!

Iljitsch