[126410] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Fri May 14 16:37:04 2010
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <235599705-1273866306-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2110548843-@bda895.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 16:36:28 -0400
To: bruns@2mbit.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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)
>=20
>=20
> 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 =
:)
> 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).
> 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.
- Jared (Curious about what incumbent carrier plans are for end-user - =
eg qwest, att, vz resi)=
