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


Reply via email to