On May 14, 2010, at 1:36 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On May 14, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
(Sent from my Blackberry, please avoid the flames as I can't do inline quoting)
Native IPv6 is a crapshoot. About the only people in the US that I've seen that are no-bullshit IPv6 native ready is Hurricane Electric. NTT is supposedly as well but I can't speak as to where they have connectivity.
I can say that we (NTT) have been IPv6 enabled or ready at all customer ports since ~2003. Anyone else who has not gotten there in the intervening years may have problems supporting you for your IPv4 as well :)
True.
Being that there's issues that leave us unable to get native connectivity, we have a BGP tunnel thanks to HE (with a 20ms latency from Seattle to Freemont).
You should be able to get native IPv6 in Seattle from a variety of providers. If you're not finding it, you're not really looking (IMHO).
Depends. If he's in the Westin or some other colo, sure. If not, he may have last-mile expenses that exceed sanity for his situation leading to a tunneled solution.
Tunnels suck if not done correctly. We sometimes have faster and more reliable connections through IPv6, so ymmv.
The tunneled part of the "IPv6" internet fell to the wayside a long time ago, there are stragglers and I have even seen people try to peer over tunnels in 2010, but anyone still adding that level of overlay (v6-over-v4) may find themselves in a world of hurt soon enough.
I have to disagree with you here. Given the proportion of the IPv6 internet that is still connected via tunnels, your statement simply doesn't really hold. I will readily agree that where possible, native connections beat tunnels. However, tunnels can be a cost effective alternative where native connectivity is not yet readily available and they still work quite well if properly configured and structured. Owen