[140549] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Interested in input on tunnels as an IPv6 transition technology
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Blake Hudson)
Fri May 13 10:45:04 2011
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 09:44:11 -0500
From: Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <201105130726.IAA06542@sunf10.rd.bbc.co.uk>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
>> would be interested to know what people think
>> is good about tunnels as an IPv6 transition technology, and what people
>> think is bad about tunnels.
> The good thing about tunnels is people can build them where there's no
> proper network
>
> The bad thing about tunnels is people build them instead of a
> proper network
>
> brandon
>
We've used an HE tunnel with BGP for about a year and it has not been
reliable enough for my tastes. However, I think it's great for testing -
I just wouldn't want to rely on it for production. One, it's not ideal
to force traffic over a tunnel that incurs additional processing,
latency, and reliability problems. Second, in the case of a free HE
tunnel, it might be viewed as impolite to send the tunnel provider lots
of data (I don't remember seeing a bandwidth usage policy).
Only in the case where local peers refuse to provide reliable IP6
transit would I consider using a tunnel full time for IP6 traffic. And
even then, probably only if I was paying and had some sort of service
guarantees and support from the tunnel provider. I would look at
switching local peers for transit before relying on a tunnel.
--Blake
