On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Niels Bakker wrote:
* cfriacas@fccn.pt (Carlos Friacas) [Thu 28 Oct 2004, 13:38 CEST]:
From AS1930 (Portugal, Europe): [it works...]
;; Query time: 544 msec ;; SERVER: 2001:503:231d::2:30#53(2001:503:231d::2:30) ;; WHEN: Thu Oct 28 12:11:40 2004 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 504
;; Query time: 547 msec ;; SERVER: 2001:503:a83e::2:30#53(2001:503:a83e::2:30) ;; WHEN: Thu Oct 28 12:43:23 2004 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 504
Query times using IPv6 seem significantly higher than those for IPv4 to both a and b.gtld-servers.net, but as far as you can trust traceroute it doesn't seem as if the IPv4 and IPv6 addresses for each host end up in wildly different places...
Anyone else care to comment? The hop count is suspiciously lower for IPv6 than for IPv4, and has twice the latency (coming from Europe too). But again, this is traceroute `wisdom'.
Yes. Definitely there are tunnels in the path... For now, i dont care about query times, i only wish to guarantee reachability. The next phase will only happen when *more* tier-1s start to sell ipv6 transit on the same basis they sell ipv4 transit for years.
-- Niels.
-- Today's subliminal thought is:
./Carlos -------------- http://www.ip6.fccn.pt/nativeRCTS2.html Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt "Internet is just routes (140068/465), naming (millions) and... people!"