Re: [v6tc] Re: Tunneling and Transition Drafts

[Jeroen Massar <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 11:01 +0200, [e-mail] wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 02:44:49 +0800, Fred Baker wrote:

> > At that point we have to solve a rendezvous problem. When two of one 
> > kind of host need to communicate over a network of the other kind, we 
> > obviously want to tunnel.
> 
> The 6bone ended up in a useless tunnel mess. Keep it simple has always
> turned out to be the best approach. I think a dual-stack network is
> easier to manage than a tunneled network. When users on an IPv4-only
> network want to use IPv6-only services, they should convince the network
> managers to upgrade to dual-stack. Otherwise, the tunnel mess will stay
> forever, because there is no incentive to upgrade to dual-stack.

Of course dual-stack is the way to go, but the biggest reason that
people do not upgrade to dual-stack is the lack of support in their
hardware. If they where able to dual-stack stuff, they would not even
bother with tunneling.

Also we are talking about tunneling inside the same AS here, not like
the 6bone globally. A packet over a tunnel will thus have 90% the same
path it would take when being native. See my traceroutes below, I'll
post the diffs to the native path when it becomes native as my ISP
indeed moved to their own ATM trunk and now can provide it natively,
before they couldn't as the technology didn't allow for it.

> Isn't the main reason for tunneling the fact that too few networks are
> deploying IPv6? Trying to force IPv6 deployment by creating complicated
> tunnel overlays seems to me like wrong engineering.

No, the main reason seems to be support and stability.

Also, they don't earn money selling IPv6 thus they are not allowed
politically to deploy it.

Greets,
 Jeroen

--
IPv4:

jeroen@purgatory:~$ traceroute www.bit.nl
traceroute to http-unix.bip.bit.nl (213.136.12.232), 64 hops max, 40
byte packets
 1  213-136-24-1.adsl.bit.nl (213.136.24.1)  12 ms  11 ms  11 ms
 2  i49.ge-0-1-0.jun1.kelvin.network.bit.nl (213.136.31.33)  11 ms  22
ms  11 ms
 3  http.lb.network.bit.nl (213.136.12.232)  12 ms  11 ms  11 ms

IPv6:

jeroen@purgatory:~$ traceroute6 www.bit.nl
traceroute to http-unix.bip.bit.nl (2001:7b8:3:5::80:1) from
2001:7b8:300:0:290:27ff:fe24:c19f, 30 hops max, 16 byte packets
 1  gw-1.ede-01.nl.sixxs.net (2001:7b8:2ff::1)  16.866 ms  13.277 ms
13.863 ms
 2  sixxs-gw.ipv6.network.bit.nl (2001:7b8:3:4f:290:6900:4fc6:d81f)
13.697 ms  13.612 ms  19.932 ms
 3  2001:7b8:3:5::80:1 (2001:7b8:3:5::80:1)  12.444 ms  19.834 ms
13.277 ms

And just in case one is wondering, the tunnel box is found over this
path:

jeroen@purgatory:~$ traceroute nlede01.sixxs.net
traceroute to nlede01.sixxs.net (193.109.122.244), 64 hops max, 40 byte
packets
 1  213-136-24-1.adsl.bit.nl (213.136.24.1)  12 ms  11 ms  11 ms
 2  i49.ge-0-1-0.jun1.kelvin.network.bit.nl (213.136.31.33)  11 ms  11
ms  11 ms
 3  nlede01.sixxs.net (193.109.122.244)  13 ms  11 ms  10 ms

Which explains the 1ms difference in latency ;)

_______________________________________________
v6tc mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6tc