Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection

[Jack Carrozzo <jack () crepinc com>]

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

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Franck Martin <franck () genius com> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists () gmail com>
> To: "Michael Ulitskiy" <mulitskiy () acedsl com>
> Cc: nanog () nanog org
> Sent: Thursday, 13 May, 2010 6:39:28 PM
> Subject: Re: ipv6 transit over tunneled connection
>
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Michael Ulitskiy <mulitskiy () acedsl com>
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > We're in the early stage of planning ipv6 deployment -
> > learning/labbing/experimenting/etc. We've got to the point when we're
> > also planning to request initial ipv6 allocation from ARIN.
> > So I wonder what ipv6 transit options I have if my upstreams do not
> > support native ipv6 connectivity?
> > I see Hurricane Electric tunnel broker BGP tunnel. Is there anything
> > else? Either free or commercial?
>
> 1) see gblx/ntt/sprint/twt/vzb for transit-v6
> 2) tunnel inside your domain (your control, your MTU issues, your
> alternate pathing of tunnels vs pipe)
> 3) don't tunnel beyond your borders, really just don't
>
> tunnels are bad, always.
> -chris
>
> I see so many times, that tunnels are bad for IPv6, but this is the way
> IPv6 has been designed to work when you cannot get direct IPv6. So I would
> not say tunnels are bad, but direct IPv6 is better (OECD document on IPv6
> states the use of tunnels).
>
> If the issue with tunnel is MTU, then a non-negligible part of IPv4 does
> not work well with MTU different of 1500. With IPv6 we bring the concept of
> jumbo packets, with large MTU. If we cannot work with non standard MTUs in
> IPv6 tunnels, how will we work with jumbo packets?