[152071] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 support via Charter | Ideas on BGP Tunnel via HE
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Seth Mos)
Wed Apr 11 15:35:22 2012
From: Seth Mos <seth.mos@dds.nl>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ0+aXZYFADBnQdHhwg8p5ObVcMVHc_bwzg5UQ6aWOkzpO4Z-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 21:34:31 +0200
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Hi,
Op 11 apr 2012, om 20:16 heeft Anurag Bhatia het volgende geschreven:
> Also, does it makes sense to go for BGP Tunnel for now? I just setup =
IPv6
> Tunnel via Hurricane Electric. Latency seems pretty much OK ~ 10-15ms =
of
> overhead. Yet to test other parameters. I heard Tunnels are usually =
bad.
> Can someone tell how to test this tunnel setup to confirm if there is =
a
> performance issue or not? I am thinking of writing a quick bash script =
and
> run via cron to test latency, packet loss and bandwidth throughput for
> couple of days. If anyone has better idea, please let me know.
Also using a HE.net BGP tunnel for our IPv6, simply because having just =
1 native provider with Ipv6 isn't redundant. That and it's 8mbit.
The v4 connection which the tunnel connects over is 90mbit, and the =
tunnel needs to travel from NL to DE for the FRA BGP peering.
I'm getting about 40mbit through the IPv6 tunnel, so i'd say it works =
well, although the throughput has slowly been dropping to the 30's range =
over the last 6 months. But that's probably because of the latency.
For something that is provided for free I'm really glad we have it.
I should have peered with their UK PoP as it's much closer by latency, =
thus faster.
Cheers,
Seth=
