Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong 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 :)
True.

> > 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).
Depends.  If he's in the Westin or some other colo, sure.  If not, he may have last-mile expenses that exceed sanity 
for his situation leading to a tunneled solution.

> > 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.
I have to disagree with you here. Given the proportion of the IPv6 internet that is still connected via tunnels, your 
statement simply doesn't really hold.

I will readily agree that where possible, native connections beat tunnels. However, tunnels can be a cost effective 
alternative where native connectivity is not yet readily available and they still work quite well if properly 
configured and structured.

Owen