[140566] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Interested in input on tunnels as an IPv6 transition technology
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (TR Shaw)
Fri May 13 15:32:28 2011
From: TR Shaw <tshaw@oitc.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=AcNdWXkj0JSOy9vjqe9TH4rJm_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 15:32:22 -0400
To: NANOG List <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:52 PM, Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> =
wrote:
>> Hullo all.
>>=20
>> I'm working on a talk, and 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.
>>=20
>> It would probably be best to let me know off-list :-) but I'm happy =
to
>> summarise back to the list. Any references you have to useful papers,
>> articles, discussions etc would also be appreciated.
>>=20
>> I'm looking for both general problems and advantages, but also
>> advantages and disadvantages specific to particular tunnel types. It
>> would also be helpful to know from what perspective particular things
>> are good or bad, in so far as it isn't obvious. A carrier has a
>> different perspective than, say, a home user, who will have a =
different
>> perspective again to an enterprise user.
>>=20
>> Many thanks in advance for your input.
All I can say is that if it wasn't for HE tunnels I would be SOL. No =
provider here in east central Florida can even speak IPv6. Brighthouse =
is clueless. ATT told me maybe 2012 or 2013! So I tunnel to HE's POP in =
Miami. With this I can test and become dual stack operational. Yes, it =
is not as good as a native connection but in my position its the only =
game in town.
Tom
