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 <fra...@genius.com> wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.li...@gmail.com> > To: "Michael Ulitskiy" <mulits...@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 <mulits...@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? > >
