On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Franck Martin <fra...@genius.com> wrote: > I said somewhere in here... wierd quoting happened. > 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).
Tunnels promote poor paths, they bring along LOTS of issues wrt PMTUD, asymmetry of paths, improper/inefficient paths (see example paths from several ripe preso's by jereon/others), longer latency. If the tunnel exits your border you can't control what happens and you can't affect that tunnels performance characteristics. it's 2010, get native v6. > 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? a non-negligible part of the ipv6 internet doesn't work at all with >1280 mtu... due to tunnels and some other hackery :( jumbo packets are a fiction, everyone should stop 10 years ago believing they will ever work end-to-end between random sites. -Chris
