Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic WGLC

["Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" <[e-mail]>]

Management on SP side? Not really as they do go end-2-end.

Manual tunnels can be used when deploying a tunnel broker for example which can be 
semi automated, IPvx over IPsec is the base of some other dynamic tunnel mechanisms 
like DMVPN, which can cary v6 over a v4 infrastructure for enterprise customers (DMVPN is 
a Cisco solution, but I am sure there are others more open like openVPN I believe).

Having an unmanaged service will ofcours require less management then a managed solution.

G/



-----Original Message-----
From: Mohacsi Janos [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 20 April 2011 10:58
To: Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)
Cc: Philip Homburg; Roger Jørgensen; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic WGLC




On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote:

> For experiments, why not use IPv6 over IPsec, or manual tunnels or DMVPN or....
> All managed solutions, that work pretty well and none have the downside negative side-impacts of 6to4.
>

Dear Gunter,
 	All the methods, you mentioned is requires some form of management 
on providers side.
 	Can you list the devices/softwares supporting the methods you have 
mentioned?
 	Best Regards,
 			Janos Mohacsi



> G/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mohacsi Janos [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 20 April 2011 10:36
> To: Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)
> Cc: Philip Homburg; Roger J?rgensen; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic WGLC
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote:
>
>>
>> That depends on your role. From ISP perspective, 6to4 doesn't make a lot of
>> sense. But for end users, sometimes a tunnel is all you can get. Sometimes,
>> tunnels offer even a more complete IPv6 experience than native.
>>
>> GV> I guess you are speaking for the simple home-user. In that case what
>> limits a user from obtaining a managed commercial service for IPv6? That
>> way he gets at least SLA like commitments from his favourite services
>> provider.
>>
>> GV> If its an enterprise there are better solutions out there that
>> deliver managed tunneling services.. pick your preferred vendor and they
>> will give you some options.
>
>
> In reality the situation slightly worse, let me cite our example:
>
> 1. NIIF/Hungarnet started to provide native IPv6 DSL service around 2008 -
> we wanted to do it earlier, but due to a bug in DSLAM equipment stopped us
> to provide it. Our LNS equipment was capable of handling DHCPv6-PD. We had
> to wait the telecom operator (1.5 years) to fix the problem. As an interim
> solution we started experimenting with 6to4 and Teredo. It was working
> reasonably well.
>
> 2. After fixing the DSLAM bug in the provider network and deployment of
> native IPv6 DSL service we considered switching 6to4 relay off. But there
> was a demand from administrators of our users (Universities, Research
> Institutes, Libraries) to let it run for further experimenting: There is
> only one other provider started provide native IPv6 DSL. The two big DSL
> player in Hungary is still testing and piloting their (for at least another
> year) IPv6 DSL services.
>
> In my opinion tend to be similar to Jordi's. 6to4 is good for
> experimenting with IPv6. If you need IPv6 service use native solution. But
> if there no solution on the market what to do?
>
> According to our policy our 6to4 relay is only for experimenting with IPv6
> technology..... What about 6to4 relabeled to experimental?
>
> Best Regards,
> 		Janos Mohacsi
>
>
>
>>
>> G/
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>