> perhaps better late than never... PAIX & LINX both
> have IPv6 capabilities at/on the exchange fabric(s).
> I am not aware that Equinix has taken that step.

Uhm, another dumb question.

Why does the operator of a layer 2 exchange care (or know) what
protocols your are using? IPv4, IPv6, heck I remember seeing
Appletalk, OSI and DECNET on MAE-EAST. What consenting network
operators do....

What step does Equinix (or any other layer 2 exchange) need to do?
The ATM NAPs might have an issue due to ATM/ARP, but even then I suspect
two consenting network operators could use static IPv6 ARP tables
without the NAP operator doing anything.

  Two things:
  IPv6 can and does take advantage of larger MTU sizes. Selection
  of switch fabric makes a difference.
  Often, participants expect to have an IP address assigned for their
  use on an exchange. Usually these delegations are from a common
  block. Where they are not, its hard to tell an exchange from a
  bunch of point2point links. LINX and PAIX have IPv6 prefixes that
  participants can use.
  I would expect that if the Equinix exchange participants were IPv6
  hungry, they would ask for a way to get a v6 address for their
  connection. And I would expect Equinix would find a way to accomodate

  Otherwise you are correct, the operators don't have to coordinate
  at all, except on a bilateral basis and then.... whats the point of
  the exchange? :slight_smile: wrote:

I would expect that if the Equinix exchange participants were IPv6
hungry ...

Let me toss in a question that may really be dumb... what are those
that are hungry for IPV6 doing with it?

I figure that organizations that run IPV6 now think they are
ahead of the game. Are they? Is this something that responsible
ISPs should be doing?

Would this turn our network into one big NAT area when we have to
translate into IPV4 addresses at the edge to get to the real Internet?

!bankrupt, hence !Tier1