Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection

[Franck Martin <franck () genius com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists () gmail com>
To: "Michael Ulitskiy" <mulitskiy () acedsl com>
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Sent: Thursday, 13 May, 2010 6:39:28 PM
Subject: Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Michael Ulitskiy <mulitskiy () acedsl com>
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We're in the early stage of planning ipv6 deployment -
> learning/labbing/experimenting/etc. We've got to the point when we're
> also planning to request initial ipv6 allocation from ARIN.
> So I wonder what ipv6 transit options I have if my upstreams do not
> support native ipv6 connectivity?
> I see Hurricane Electric tunnel broker BGP tunnel. Is there anything
> else? Either free or commercial?

1) see gblx/ntt/sprint/twt/vzb for transit-v6
2) tunnel inside your domain (your control, your MTU issues, your
alternate pathing of tunnels vs pipe)
3) don't tunnel beyond your borders, really just don't

tunnels are bad, always.
-chris

I see so many times, that tunnels are bad for IPv6, but this is the way IPv6 has been designed to work when you cannot 
get direct IPv6. So I would not say tunnels are bad, but direct IPv6 is better (OECD document on IPv6 states the use of 
tunnels).

If the issue with tunnel is MTU, then a non-negligible part of IPv4 does not work well with MTU different of 1500. With 
IPv6 we bring the concept of jumbo packets, with large MTU. If we cannot work with non standard MTUs in IPv6 tunnels, 
how will we work with jumbo packets?