ipv6 transit over tunneled connection

Paul Timmins paul at telcodata.us
Fri May 14 16:23:23 CDT 2010


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 at 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
>>     
>
>
>
>
>   





More information about the NANOG mailing list