nanog mailing list archives
Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection
From: Jack Carrozzo <jack () crepinc com>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 14:43:00 -0400
I agree - if you can get native v6 transit then more power to you. But tunnels are sure better than no IPv6 connectivity in my mind. Aside from slight performance/efficiency issues, I've never had an issue. -Jack Carrozzo On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Franck Martin <franck () genius com> wrote:
----- 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?
Current thread:
- ipv6 transit over tunneled connection Michael Ulitskiy (May 13)
- Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection Jack Carrozzo (May 13)
- Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection Christopher Morrow (May 13)
- Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection Randy Bush (May 14)
- Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection Graham Beneke (May 15)
- Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection Michael Ulitskiy (May 14)
- Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection Christopher Morrow (May 14)
- Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection Jeroen Massar (May 15)
- Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection Michael Ulitskiy (May 17)
- Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection Christopher Morrow (May 14)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection Franck Martin (May 14)
- Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection Jack Carrozzo (May 14)
- Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection Jared Mauch (May 14)
- Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection Seth Mattinen (May 14)
- Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection Christopher Morrow (May 14)
- Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection Seth Mattinen (May 14)
- Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection Jack Carrozzo (May 14)
- RE: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection Eric Van Tol (May 17)
- Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection Karl Auer (May 14)
- Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection bmanning (May 14)