IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" <gvandeve@cisco.com> Wed, 20 April 2011 08:39 UTC

Return-Path: <gvandeve@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B0ABE0668 for <v6ops@ietfc.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 01:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.389, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rb105zm4EuXu for <v6ops@ietfc.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 01:39:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1522BE0655 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 01:39:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=gvandeve@cisco.com; l=2729; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1303288784; x=1304498384; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=oAjXPTbTOnDay3HPebuy3ObOkCqGSELXEg2rdMktzrk=; b=CPqn/nlgel9DoCtLQFGXShbRQQCdcV55/w5xPN+LiG4l/B/9AkOU4Obe azC+vO4qk2OEyQJ3A+jLbvl++bDhYLifuxyUuBL462EdJLZ9vYK3//Ry5 kaePH/3xTJm43mNGMpkifN9FKd+MNiW7Ej8tu/KlYxm1KKEmnZNLB9WFb g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AtIDAIyark2Q/khLgWdsb2JhbAClPBQBARYmJYhvoWecfIVxBJIo
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,245,1301875200"; d="scan'208";a="26405335"
Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Apr 2011 08:39:43 +0000
Received: from xbh-ams-101.cisco.com (xbh-ams-101.cisco.com [144.254.74.71]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p3K8dhHA016816; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:39:43 GMT
Received: from xmb-ams-101.cisco.com ([144.254.74.76]) by xbh-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 20 Apr 2011 10:39:43 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 10:39:41 +0200
Message-ID: <4269EA985EACD24987D82DAE2FEC62E5037FCA55@XMB-AMS-101.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1104201017220.63146@mignon.ki.iif.hu>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic WGLC
Thread-Index: Acv/NhVfAXq70qg6R0CIXoIRSdpUUAAADj6A
References: <4984B8F2-AC42-491E-9C2B-BE999B279759@cisco.com><4DABE200.3040504@redpill-linpro.com><BANLkTi=RVRmuosw0Z0u0Z+8BZnih_DuRWA@mail.gmail.com> <m1QBrw3-0001iPC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <4269EA985EACD24987D82DAE2FEC62E5037FCA15@XMB-AMS-101.cisco.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1104201017220.63146@mignon.ki.iif.hu>
From: "Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" <gvandeve@cisco.com>
To: Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi@niif.hu>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Apr 2011 08:39:43.0072 (UTC) FILETIME=[7ECAAE00:01CBFF36]
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic WGLC
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:39:45 -0000

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.

G/

-----Original Message-----
From: Mohacsi Janos [mailto:mohacsi@niif.hu] 
Sent: 20 April 2011 10:36
To: Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)
Cc: Philip Homburg; Roger Jørgensen; v6ops@ietf.org
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
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email