Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection

[Merike Kaeo <kaeo () merike com>]

On May 14, 2010, at 1:36 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:

> On May 14, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
>
> > (Sent from my Blackberry, please avoid the flames as I can't do  
> > inline quoting)
> >
> >
> > Native IPv6 is a crapshoot.  About the only people in the US that  
> > I've seen that are no-bullshit IPv6 native ready is Hurricane  
> > Electric. NTT is supposedly as well but I can't speak as to where  
> > they have connectivity.
>
> I can say that we (NTT) have been IPv6 enabled or ready at all  
> customer ports since ~2003.  Anyone else who has not gotten there  
> in the intervening years may have problems supporting you for your  
> IPv4 as well :)

I had native eBGP with NTT in Dec 2005......this is when I was  
working with Connection By Boeing in Seattle.  Worked like a charm.

And yes, since I now live in Seattle, I have heard of some others  
doing native although haven't validated.

> > Being that there's issues that leave us unable to get native  
> > connectivity, we have a BGP tunnel thanks to HE (with a 20ms  
> > latency from Seattle to Freemont).
>
> You should be able to get native IPv6 in Seattle from a variety of  
> providers.  If you're not finding it, you're not really looking  
> (IMHO).

I'd 2nd that....

> > Tunnels suck if not done correctly.  We sometimes have faster and  
> > more reliable connections through IPv6, so ymmv.
>
> The tunneled part of the "IPv6" internet fell to the wayside a long  
> time ago, there are stragglers and I have even seen people try to  
> peer over tunnels in 2010, but anyone still adding that level of  
> overlay (v6-over-v4) may find themselves in a world of hurt soon  
> enough.
>
> - Jared (Curious about what incumbent carrier plans are for end- 
> user - eg qwest, att, vz resi)