IPv6 support via Charter | Ideas on BGP Tunnel via HE
Hello, Does anyone here has clues on IPv6 support via Charter? We recently got BGP up on the connection and they denied for IPv6 support for now. Support engineer gave expected time of something like end of year which seems very late as per our plans. Is situation same for everyone who sits in downstream of Charter? 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. Thanks. -- Anurag Bhatia anuragbhatia.com or simply - http://[2001:470:26:78f::5] if you are on IPv6 connected network! Twitter: @anurag_bhatia <https://twitter.com/#!/anurag_bhatia> Linkedin: http://linkedin.anuragbhatia.com
Hurricane Electric have a presentation on testing their tunnels using Traceroute6, Tracepath6, and mtr: http://ipv6.he.net/presentations/trace6.pdf iperf now supports IPv6 and works well for testing tunnels as well. I have previously gotten good results from Hurricane Electric tunnels. -- Dan Sneddon Network Engineering & Network Security twitter | AS13414 dxs@twitter.com | Follow me! @dansneddon On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Anurag Bhatia wrote:
Hello,
Does anyone here has clues on IPv6 support via Charter? We recently got BGP up on the connection and they denied for IPv6 support for now. Support engineer gave expected time of something like end of year which seems very late as per our plans.
Is situation same for everyone who sits in downstream of Charter?
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.
Thanks.
--
Anurag Bhatia anuragbhatia.com or simply - http://[2001:470:26:78f::5] if you are on IPv6 connected network!
Twitter: @anurag_bhatia <https://twitter.com/#!/anurag_bhatia> Linkedin: http://linkedin.anuragbhatia.com
Anurag, We (Charter) are planning on starting early field trials with our business customers with IPv6 real soon (within Q2). We have a few customers already identified, but would you be interested in participating with us? Jim Rampley | Principal Engineer | 314-543-2505 12405 Powerscourt Drive, St. Louis, MO 63131 -----Original Message----- From: Anurag Bhatia [mailto:me@anuragbhatia.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 1:16 PM To: NANOG Mailing List Subject: IPv6 support via Charter | Ideas on BGP Tunnel via HE Hello, Does anyone here has clues on IPv6 support via Charter? We recently got BGP up on the connection and they denied for IPv6 support for now. Support engineer gave expected time of something like end of year which seems very late as per our plans. Is situation same for everyone who sits in downstream of Charter? 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. Thanks. -- Anurag Bhatia anuragbhatia.com or simply - http://[2001:470:26:78f::5] if you are on IPv6 connected network! Twitter: @anurag_bhatia <https://twitter.com/#!/anurag_bhatia> Linkedin: http://linkedin.anuragbhatia.com E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, copying, or storage of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited.
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
Hi Seth I just did a test from Eu based server sitting below EU based HE Tunnel node by downloading Ubuntu release file from US based server. This does not tells about possible high speed but surely tells what is available atleast. Server itself is sitting on M-Online with 100Mbps pipe. IPv4: traceroute to mirror.anl.gov (146.137.96.7), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 gw.giga-dns.com (91.194.90.1) [AS51167] 16.876 ms 16.925 ms 16.915 ms 2 host-93-104-204-33.customer.m-online.net (93.104.204.33) [AS8767] 1.166 ms 1.449 ms 1.445 ms 3 xe-2-1-0.rt-decix-1.m-online.net (212.18.6.162) [AS8767] 8.889 ms 8.888 ms 8.880 ms 4 20gigabitethernet4-3.core1.fra1.he.net (80.81.192.172) [AS6695] 18.586 ms 19.831 ms 19.824 ms 5 10gigabitethernet1-4.core1.par2.he.net (184.105.213.162) [AS6939] 18.794 ms 18.789 ms 10gigabitethernet2-2.core1.par2.he.net (72.52.92.26) [AS6939] 18.437 ms 6 10gigabitethernet1-1.core1.par2.he.net (184.105.213.90) [AS6939] 18.507 ms 10gigabitethernet7-1.core1.ash1.he.net (184.105.213.93) [AS6939] 96.880 ms 97.345 ms 7 esnet.gigabitethernet4-15.core1.ash1.he.net (216.66.70.18) [AS6939] 95.544 ms 10gigabitethernet7-1.core1.ash1.he.net (184.105.213.93) [AS6939] 97.616 ms esnet.gigabitethernet4-15.core1.ash1.he.net (216.66.70.18) [AS6939] 95.354 ms 8 washcr1-te-eqxashrt1.es.net (134.55.221.145) [AS293] 97.835 ms esnet.gigabitethernet4-15.core1.ash1.he.net (216.66.70.18) [AS6939] 95.727 ms washcr1-te-eqxashrt1.es.net (134.55.221.145) [AS293] 98.492 ms 9 washcr1-te-eqxashrt1.es.net (134.55.221.145) [AS293] 98.463 ms washsdn1-sdn2-washcr1.es.net (134.55.220.54) [AS293] 110.668 ms 110.641 ms 10 starsdn1-ip-washsdn2.es.net (134.55.218.65) [AS293] 120.357 ms 120.844 ms washsdn1-sdn2-washcr1.es.net (134.55.220.54) [AS293] 110.834 ms 11 starcr1-ip-starsdn1.es.net (134.55.219.25) [AS293] 164.788 ms 164.548 ms 164.550 ms 12 starcr1-ip-starsdn1.es.net (134.55.219.25) [AS293] 164.758 ms anlmr2-starcr1.es.net (134.55.219.53) [AS293] 128.288 ms 128.286 ms 13 guava-esnet.anchor.anl.gov (192.5.170.77) [AS683] 117.532 ms anlmr2-starcr1.es.net (134.55.219.53) [AS293] 128.263 ms guava-esnet.anchor.anl.gov (192.5.170.77) [AS683] 117.500 ms 14 * guava-esnet.anchor.anl.gov (192.5.170.77) [AS683] 117.687 ms 117.858 ms 15 * * * 16 * * * 17 * * * 18 * * * root@server7:/home/anurag/tmp# wget -4 http://mirror.anl.gov/pub/ubuntu-iso/DVDs/ubuntu/12.04/beta-2/ubuntu-12.04-b... --2012-04-11 21:56:46-- http://mirror.anl.gov/pub/ubuntu-iso/DVDs/ubuntu/12.04/beta-2/ubuntu-12.04-b... Resolving mirror.anl.gov... 146.137.96.7 Connecting to mirror.anl.gov|146.137.96.7|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 1644474368 (1.5G) [application/octet-stream] Saving to: `ubuntu-12.04-beta2-dvd-i386.iso.1' 100%[============================================================================================================================>] 1,644,474,368 4.78M/s in 5m 38s 2012-04-11 22:02:25 (4.64 MB/s) - `ubuntu-12.04-beta2-dvd-i386.iso.1' saved [1644474368/1644474368] IPv6: traceroute to mirror.anl.gov (2620:0:dc0:1800:214:4fff:fe7d:1b9), 30 hops max, 80 byte packets 1 2001:470:25:78f::1 (2001:470:25:78f::1) [AS6939] 18.918 ms 21.147 ms 23.357 ms 2 gige-g2-20.core1.zrh1.he.net (2001:470:0:11d::1) [AS6939] 23.341 ms 23.324 ms 23.797 ms 3 10gigabitethernet5-1.core1.fra1.he.net (2001:470:0:21c::1) [AS6939] 29.781 ms 30.252 ms 23.671 ms 4 10gigabitethernet5-3.core1.lon1.he.net (2001:470:0:1d2::1) [AS6939] 37.897 ms 37.880 ms 43.095 ms 5 10gigabitethernet7-4.core1.nyc4.he.net (2001:470:0:128::1) [AS6939] 104.552 ms 105.763 ms 105.742 ms 6 10gigabitethernet2-3.core1.ash1.he.net (2001:470:0:36::1) [AS6939] 113.963 ms 114.467 ms 111.478 ms 7 lawrence-berkeley-national-laboratory.gigabitethernet4-15.core1.ash1.he.net(2001:470:1:27f::2) [AS6939] 109.467 ms 109.452 ms 109.435 ms 8 washcr1-te-eqxashrt1.es.net (2001:400:0:15a::1) [AS293] 115.929 ms 113.625 ms 115.896 ms 9 washsdn1-sdn2-washcr1.es.net (2001:400:0:e0::2) [AS293] 114.606 ms 112.068 ms 112.045 ms 10 starsdn1-ip-washsdn2.es.net (2001:400:0:ab::1) [AS293] 126.783 ms 130.008 ms 126.747 ms 11 starcr1-ip-starsdn1.es.net (2001:400:0:a2::2) [AS293] 127.268 ms 124.223 ms 124.125 ms 12 anlmr2-starcr1.es.net (2001:400:0:c0::1) [AS293] 128.066 ms 130.529 ms 130.513 ms 13 2001:400:2202:8::2 (2001:400:2202:8::2) [AS293] 130.976 ms 128.915 ms 128.892 ms 14 * * * 15 * * * root@server7:/home/anurag/tmp# wget -6 http://mirror.anl.gov/pub/ubuntu-iso/DVDs/ubuntu/12.04/beta-2/ubuntu-12.04-b... --2012-04-11 21:45:52-- http://mirror.anl.gov/pub/ubuntu-iso/DVDs/ubuntu/12.04/beta-2/ubuntu-12.04-b... Resolving mirror.anl.gov... 2620:0:dc0:1800:214:4fff:fe7d:1b9 Connecting to mirror.anl.gov|2620:0:dc0:1800:214:4fff:fe7d:1b9|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 1644474368 (1.5G) [application/octet-stream] Saving to: `ubuntu-12.04-beta2-dvd-i386.iso' 100%[============================================================================================================================>] 1,644,474,368 *3.66M/s in 6m 11s* 2012-04-11 21:52:04 (4.22 MB/s) - `ubuntu-12.04-beta2-dvd-i386.iso' saved [1644474368/1644474368] On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Seth Mos <seth.mos@dds.nl> wrote:
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
-- Anurag Bhatia anuragbhatia.com or simply - http://[2001:470:26:78f::5] if you are on IPv6 connected network! Twitter: @anurag_bhatia <https://twitter.com/#!/anurag_bhatia> Linkedin: http://linkedin.anuragbhatia.com
He.net tunnels are also good to have because depending on your provider, there's still many with incomplete views of the ipv6 routing table and he might have a path. This is a more prevalent issue with ipv6 than v4 at the moment. On Apr 11, 2012 2:03 PM, "Anurag Bhatia" <me@anuragbhatia.com> wrote:
Hi Seth
I just did a test from Eu based server sitting below EU based HE Tunnel node by downloading Ubuntu release file from US based server. This does not tells about possible high speed but surely tells what is available atleast. Server itself is sitting on M-Online with 100Mbps pipe.
IPv4:
traceroute to mirror.anl.gov (146.137.96.7), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 gw.giga-dns.com (91.194.90.1) [AS51167] 16.876 ms 16.925 ms 16.915 ms 2 host-93-104-204-33.customer.m-online.net (93.104.204.33) [AS8767] 1.166 ms 1.449 ms 1.445 ms 3 xe-2-1-0.rt-decix-1.m-online.net (212.18.6.162) [AS8767] 8.889 ms 8.888 ms 8.880 ms 4 20gigabitethernet4-3.core1.fra1.he.net (80.81.192.172) [AS6695] 18.586 ms 19.831 ms 19.824 ms 5 10gigabitethernet1-4.core1.par2.he.net (184.105.213.162) [AS6939] 18.794 ms 18.789 ms 10gigabitethernet2-2.core1.par2.he.net (72.52.92.26) [AS6939] 18.437 ms 6 10gigabitethernet1-1.core1.par2.he.net (184.105.213.90) [AS6939] 18.507 ms 10gigabitethernet7-1.core1.ash1.he.net (184.105.213.93) [AS6939] 96.880 ms 97.345 ms 7 esnet.gigabitethernet4-15.core1.ash1.he.net (216.66.70.18) [AS6939] 95.544 ms 10gigabitethernet7-1.core1.ash1.he.net (184.105.213.93) [AS6939] 97.616 ms esnet.gigabitethernet4-15.core1.ash1.he.net (216.66.70.18) [AS6939] 95.354 ms 8 washcr1-te-eqxashrt1.es.net (134.55.221.145) [AS293] 97.835 ms esnet.gigabitethernet4-15.core1.ash1.he.net (216.66.70.18) [AS6939] 95.727 ms washcr1-te-eqxashrt1.es.net (134.55.221.145) [AS293] 98.492 ms 9 washcr1-te-eqxashrt1.es.net (134.55.221.145) [AS293] 98.463 ms washsdn1-sdn2-washcr1.es.net (134.55.220.54) [AS293] 110.668 ms 110.641 ms 10 starsdn1-ip-washsdn2.es.net (134.55.218.65) [AS293] 120.357 ms 120.844 ms washsdn1-sdn2-washcr1.es.net (134.55.220.54) [AS293] 110.834 ms 11 starcr1-ip-starsdn1.es.net (134.55.219.25) [AS293] 164.788 ms 164.548 ms 164.550 ms 12 starcr1-ip-starsdn1.es.net (134.55.219.25) [AS293] 164.758 ms anlmr2-starcr1.es.net (134.55.219.53) [AS293] 128.288 ms 128.286 ms 13 guava-esnet.anchor.anl.gov (192.5.170.77) [AS683] 117.532 ms anlmr2-starcr1.es.net (134.55.219.53) [AS293] 128.263 ms guava-esnet.anchor.anl.gov (192.5.170.77) [AS683] 117.500 ms 14 * guava-esnet.anchor.anl.gov (192.5.170.77) [AS683] 117.687 ms 117.858 ms 15 * * * 16 * * * 17 * * * 18 * * *
root@server7:/home/anurag/tmp# wget -4
http://mirror.anl.gov/pub/ubuntu-iso/DVDs/ubuntu/12.04/beta-2/ubuntu-12.04-b... --2012-04-11 21:56:46--
http://mirror.anl.gov/pub/ubuntu-iso/DVDs/ubuntu/12.04/beta-2/ubuntu-12.04-b... Resolving mirror.anl.gov... 146.137.96.7 Connecting to mirror.anl.gov|146.137.96.7|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 1644474368 (1.5G) [application/octet-stream] Saving to: `ubuntu-12.04-beta2-dvd-i386.iso.1'
100%[============================================================================================================================>] 1,644,474,368 4.78M/s in 5m 38s
2012-04-11 22:02:25 (4.64 MB/s) - `ubuntu-12.04-beta2-dvd-i386.iso.1' saved [1644474368/1644474368]
IPv6:
traceroute to mirror.anl.gov (2620:0:dc0:1800:214:4fff:fe7d:1b9), 30 hops max, 80 byte packets 1 2001:470:25:78f::1 (2001:470:25:78f::1) [AS6939] 18.918 ms 21.147 ms 23.357 ms 2 gige-g2-20.core1.zrh1.he.net (2001:470:0:11d::1) [AS6939] 23.341 ms 23.324 ms 23.797 ms 3 10gigabitethernet5-1.core1.fra1.he.net (2001:470:0:21c::1) [AS6939] 29.781 ms 30.252 ms 23.671 ms 4 10gigabitethernet5-3.core1.lon1.he.net (2001:470:0:1d2::1) [AS6939] 37.897 ms 37.880 ms 43.095 ms 5 10gigabitethernet7-4.core1.nyc4.he.net (2001:470:0:128::1) [AS6939] 104.552 ms 105.763 ms 105.742 ms 6 10gigabitethernet2-3.core1.ash1.he.net (2001:470:0:36::1) [AS6939] 113.963 ms 114.467 ms 111.478 ms 7 lawrence-berkeley-national-laboratory.gigabitethernet4-15.core1.ash1.he.net (2001:470:1:27f::2) [AS6939] 109.467 ms 109.452 ms 109.435 ms 8 washcr1-te-eqxashrt1.es.net (2001:400:0:15a::1) [AS293] 115.929 ms 113.625 ms 115.896 ms 9 washsdn1-sdn2-washcr1.es.net (2001:400:0:e0::2) [AS293] 114.606 ms 112.068 ms 112.045 ms 10 starsdn1-ip-washsdn2.es.net (2001:400:0:ab::1) [AS293] 126.783 ms 130.008 ms 126.747 ms 11 starcr1-ip-starsdn1.es.net (2001:400:0:a2::2) [AS293] 127.268 ms 124.223 ms 124.125 ms 12 anlmr2-starcr1.es.net (2001:400:0:c0::1) [AS293] 128.066 ms 130.529 ms 130.513 ms 13 2001:400:2202:8::2 (2001:400:2202:8::2) [AS293] 130.976 ms 128.915 ms 128.892 ms 14 * * * 15 * * *
root@server7:/home/anurag/tmp# wget -6
http://mirror.anl.gov/pub/ubuntu-iso/DVDs/ubuntu/12.04/beta-2/ubuntu-12.04-b... --2012-04-11 21:45:52--
http://mirror.anl.gov/pub/ubuntu-iso/DVDs/ubuntu/12.04/beta-2/ubuntu-12.04-b... Resolving mirror.anl.gov... 2620:0:dc0:1800:214:4fff:fe7d:1b9 Connecting to mirror.anl.gov|2620:0:dc0:1800:214:4fff:fe7d:1b9|:80... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 1644474368 (1.5G) [application/octet-stream] Saving to: `ubuntu-12.04-beta2-dvd-i386.iso'
100%[============================================================================================================================>] 1,644,474,368 *3.66M/s in 6m 11s*
2012-04-11 21:52:04 (4.22 MB/s) - `ubuntu-12.04-beta2-dvd-i386.iso' saved [1644474368/1644474368]
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Seth Mos <seth.mos@dds.nl> wrote:
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
--
Anurag Bhatia anuragbhatia.com or simply - http://[2001:470:26:78f::5] if you are on IPv6 connected network!
Twitter: @anurag_bhatia <https://twitter.com/#!/anurag_bhatia> Linkedin: http://linkedin.anuragbhatia.com
On Apr 11, 2012, at 5:19 PM, PC wrote:
He.net tunnels are also good to have because depending on your provider, there's still many with incomplete views of the ipv6 routing table and he might have a path. This is a more prevalent issue with ipv6 than v4 at the moment.
This is a big problem for the two providers involved in this "spat" having inconsistent IPv4/IPv6 business relationships (peering, etc). There are many professional service providers that will happily dual-stack your internet port with consistent business relationships. Don't let these two parties that so far have agreed to disagree prevent you from using IPv6 to its fullest. Select another carrier. - Jared
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
This is a big problem for the two providers involved in this "spat" having inconsistent IPv4/IPv6 business relationships (peering, etc).
There are many professional service providers that will happily dual-stack your internet port with consistent business relationships. Don't let these two parties that so far have agreed to disagree prevent you from using IPv6 to its fullest. Select another carrier.
Hi Jared, Is it really fair to say there are "two" parties in a peering spat when Cogent is one of them? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
On Apr 11, 2012, at 6:19 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
This is a big problem for the two providers involved in this "spat" having inconsistent IPv4/IPv6 business relationships (peering, etc).
There are many professional service providers that will happily dual-stack your internet port with consistent business relationships. Don't let these two parties that so far have agreed to disagree prevent you from using IPv6 to its fullest. Select another carrier.
Hi Jared,
Is it really fair to say there are "two" parties in a peering spat when Cogent is one of them?
I know that the following IPv4 as-paths appear to enumerate transit paths where the providers can do IPv6 transit as well. If HE does not take advantage of those existing IP transit connections for whichever IP version I'm not sure where I would cast blame. Perhaps those ports don't have IPv6. I have my own opinions about peering disputes which you can obtain privately. route-views>sh ip bgp 216.218.186.2 BGP routing table entry for 216.218.128.0/17, version 417045 Paths: (35 available, best #26, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) ...snip... 1239 3549 6939 6939 144.228.241.130 from 144.228.241.130 (144.228.241.130) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external 2914 1299 6939 6939 129.250.0.11 from 129.250.0.11 (129.250.0.12) Origin IGP, metric 5, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 2914:420 2914:1008 2914:2000 2914:3000 65504:1299 3356 3549 6939 6939 4.69.184.193 from 4.69.184.193 (4.68.3.50) Origin IGP, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 3356:3 3356:22 3356:86 3356:575 3356:666 3356:2012 3549:4143 3549:30840 701 1299 6939 6939 157.130.10.233 from 157.130.10.233 (137.39.3.60) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external 1668 3549 6939 6939 66.185.128.48 from 66.185.128.48 (66.185.128.48) Origin IGP, metric 7, localpref 100, valid, external 7018 1299 6939 6939 12.0.1.63 from 12.0.1.63 (12.0.1.63) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 7018:5000 3257 1299 6939 6939 89.149.178.10 from 89.149.178.10 (213.200.87.91) Origin IGP, metric 10, localpref 100, valid, external Community: 3257:8100 3257:30052 3257:50001 3257:54900 3257:54901 3561 3549 6939 6939 206.24.210.102 from 206.24.210.102 (206.24.210.102) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external 6453 3549 6939 6939 66.110.0.86 from 66.110.0.86 (66.110.0.86) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external
On 04/11/2012 02:34 PM, Seth Mos wrote:
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.
Indeed. It's pretty amazing what HE has put together.
I should have peered with their UK PoP as it's much closer by latency, thus faster.
Why don't you? Can you setup more then one peering?
On Apr 11, 2012, at 2:14 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote:
On 04/11/2012 02:34 PM, Seth Mos wrote:
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.
Indeed. It's pretty amazing what HE has put together.
I should have peered with their UK PoP as it's much closer by latency, thus faster.
Why don't you? Can you setup more then one peering?
Yes... Many of our customers set up multiple peerings. Owen
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Anurag Bhatia <me@anuragbhatia.com> wrote:
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.
HE does a fine job with their IPv6 tunnels. If they're you're only v6 connectivity or you need them to provide a backup IPv6 route for when sole native v6 provider goes down, they're a superb choice. However... Do not, do not, do not, rig your system to prefer tunneled IPvanything to native IPvanythingelse. For all of the obvious reasons. If you publish an IPv6 address for www.anuragbhatia.com, clients with IPv6 will use that IPv6 address in preference to the address published for IPv4. If your sole IPv6 access is with a tunnel, don't publish an IPv6 address for www. Publish the IPv6 address under www6.anuragbhatia.com instead. And on your mail server, have the second MX point to a name with a AAAA, and let the first MX stay on v4. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
participants (9)
-
Anurag Bhatia -
Charles N Wyble -
Dan Sneddon -
Jared Mauch -
Owen DeLong -
PC -
Rampley Jr, Jim F -
Seth Mos -
William Herrin