Re: IPv6 day and tunnels

[Joe Maimon <jmaimon () ttec com>]

Jeroen Massar wrote:

> Tunnels therefor only should exist at the edge where native IPv6 cannot
> be made possible without significant investments in hardware and or
> other resources. Of course every tunnel should at one point in time be
> replaced by native where possible, thus hopefully the folks planning
> expenses and hardware upgrades have finally realized that they cannot
> get around it any more and have put this "ipv6" feature on the list for
> the next round of upgrades.


IPv4 is pretty mature. Are there more or less tunnels on it?

Why do you think a maturing IPv6 means less tunnels as opposed to more?

Does IPv6 contain elegant solutions to all the issues one would resort 
to tunnels with IPv4?

Does successful IPv6 deployment require obsoleting tunneling?

Fail.

Today, most people cant even get IPv6 without tunnels.

And tunnels are far from the only cause of MTU lower than what has 
become the only valid MTU of 1500, thanks in no small part to people who 
refuse to acknowledge operational reality and are quite satisfied with 
the state of things once they find a "them" to blame it on.

I just want to know if we can expect IPv6 to devolve into 1280 standard 
mtu and at what gigabit rates.


Joe