[97084] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: dual-stack
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (simon@limmat.switch.ch)
Thu May 31 19:36:59 2007
From: simon@limmat.switch.ch
In-Reply-To: <20070530160145.B20281@calis.blacksun.org> (Donald Stahl's
message of "Wed, 30 May 2007 16:07:19 -0400 (EDT)")
To: Donald Stahl <don@calis.blacksun.org>
Cc: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>, nanog@nanog.org
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 01:02:40 +0200
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Donald Stahl writes:
>> I guess we have different definitions for "most significant
>> backbones". Unless you mean they have a dual-stack router running
>> _somewhere_, say, for instance, at a single IX or a lab LAN or
>> something. Which is not particularly useful if we are talking about
>> a "significant backbone".
> Rather than go back and forth- can we get some real data?
Yes please, I like data!
> Can anyone comment on the backbone IPv6 status of the major carriers?
Our three Tier-1(?) upstreams AS1299, AS3356, and AS3549 all provide
IPv6. Only one of them has dual-stack on our access link, for the
other two we have to tunnel into their IPv6 "backbone" through their
IPv4 backbone.
I don't know exactly how their internal IPv6 networks are built,
although with one of them I'm sure they use/used "6PE", i.e. IPv6
"tunneled" over an IPv6-agnostic MPLS core (learned this from trouble
tickets, sigh). But all three offer decent IPv6 connectivity -
e.g. we rarely observe gratuitous routing over an ocean and back, or
order-of-magnitude RTT or loss-rate differences between IPv4 and IPv6.
Our own backbone has been dual-stack for a couple years now, but I
guess this just shows that we can't be a "major carrier" - same for
many other national "academic" backbones as well as GEANT, the
backbone that interconnects those. Same in the US with Internet2 and
the regional research/education networks.
--
Simon. (AS559)
