Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection
(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. 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). Tunnels suck if not done correctly. We sometimes have faster and more reliable connections through IPv6, so ymmv. Brielle ------Original Message------ From: Jared Mauch To: Jack Carrozzo Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection Sent: May 14, 2010 12:49 PM I'm curious what providers have not gotten their IPv6 plans/networks/customer ports enabled. I know that Comcast is doing their trials now (Thanks John!) and will be presenting at the upcoming NANOG about their experiences. What parts of the big "I" Internet are not enabled or ready? - Jared On May 14, 2010, at 2:43 PM, Jack Carrozzo wrote:
I agree - if you can get native v6 transit then more power to you. But tunnels are sure better than no IPv6 connectivity in my mind. Aside from slight performance/efficiency issues, I've never had an issue.
-Jack Carrozzo
-- Brielle Bruns http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org
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 :)
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).
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. - Jared (Curious about what incumbent carrier plans are for end-user - eg qwest, att, vz resi)
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 :)
I had native eBGP with NTT in Dec 2005......this is when I was working with Connection By Boeing in Seattle. Worked like a charm. And yes, since I now live in Seattle, I have heard of some others doing native although haven't validated.
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).
I'd 2nd that....
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.
- Jared (Curious about what incumbent carrier plans are for end- user - eg qwest, att, vz resi)
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
On 5/14/10 2:36 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
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).
I can almost guarantee that noone can give us the level of service we get for the price we do - did an awful lot of research back in 2008 to find a new co-loc. We've also had nearly perfect uptime with the only downtime being caused by our own growing pains with equipment that has obsecure bugs relating to ipv4 and ipv6 BGP interactions. Changing providers isn't really an option for us as alternatives are guaranteed to push us over budget. $$$$ is a limiting factor for us since we're not a business focused on profit. Tunneling is our only option at this point.
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'm willing to run the risk that my tunneled connection may have problems - its part of the game of being on the leading edge. <rant> This is not directed at anyone in particular, but people forget that not everyone has thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, etc of money in their budget to accomplish their goals. There are people out there, such as ourselves, that have a very limited budget to work within each month/year. Some of us do what we do out of our own pockets because we like doing it. For example, people have called me crazy for running P3 and P4 era HP DL360/380s instead of the new generation stuff, but those nice new servers cost serious coin, and I don't see people stepping up to fund these upgrades. Just an observation, but I'm fairly sure that I'm not the only one who feels that those with rather high budgets tend to forget that not everyone has the luxury of a virtual blank check. </rant> -- Brielle Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group http://www.sosdg.org / http://www.ahbl.org
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Brielle Bruns <bruns@2mbit.com> wrote:
<rant> Just an observation, but I'm fairly sure that I'm not the only one who feels that those with rather high budgets tend to forget that not everyone has the luxury of a virtual blank check. </rant>
awesome, take an old 2800 or 2500, plug in a t1 to one of the providers listed (twt seems like a great choice, or atlantech, who I think also does v6 and seems to offer 300$/mon t1's regularly), run v6 ONLY on that, take the 10/100m ether out the back and v6-up the rest of your network. See, done for 300$/month... the reason I said 'find a provider that does do native v6, terminate there and tunnel or spread-out internally from there' was exactly because spending 'tens of thousands of dollars' right off the bat was probably hard to justify. thanks though. -chris
On 15 May 2010, at 04:30, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
See, done for 300$/month...
$300/month + the cost of building fossils into your network on day 1. This cost is a whole pile more difficult to quantify than basic PoP service capex/opex, but it's recurrent and non zero. Nick
GBLX was great with native IPv6 setup. VZB was nearly impossible to get them to set it up, and I'm tunneled to a router halfway across the country. The router I was going to had serious PMTU issues that they recently cleared up, so now it's working satisfactorily. -Paul 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.
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).
Tunnels suck if not done correctly. We sometimes have faster and more reliable connections through IPv6, so ymmv.
Brielle ------Original Message------ From: Jared Mauch To: Jack Carrozzo Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection Sent: May 14, 2010 12:49 PM
I'm curious what providers have not gotten their IPv6 plans/networks/customer ports enabled.
I know that Comcast is doing their trials now (Thanks John!) and will be presenting at the upcoming NANOG about their experiences.
What parts of the big "I" Internet are not enabled or ready?
- Jared
On May 14, 2010, at 2:43 PM, Jack Carrozzo wrote:
I agree - if you can get native v6 transit then more power to you. But tunnels are sure better than no IPv6 connectivity in my mind. Aside from slight performance/efficiency issues, I've never had an issue.
-Jack Carrozzo
participants (7)
-
Brielle Bruns -
Christopher Morrow -
Jared Mauch -
Merike Kaeo -
Nick Hilliard -
Owen DeLong -
Paul Timmins