Re: one data point regarding native IPv6 support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Michel,

making 6to4 historic does not affect 6rd. I think the draft says that much too.
I don't think we are saying that native necessarily is better than tunnels.
we are saying unmanaged tunnels crossing the Internet is bad.
6rd is managed and contained within a single SP's network.

cheers,
Ole


> According to this:
> http://blogs.cisco.com/sp/france-is-famous-for-fine-wine-cheese-and-now-
> ipv6/
> and some more recent direct talks in French, about half of worldwide
> IPv6 traffic is French.
> 
> The bulk of it comes from a single ISP (Free, AS12322) and their IPv6 is
> 6RD (RFC5569, RFC5969), a variant of 6to4. Given the constant references
> in 6RD to 6to4, I will point out that making 6to4 historic somehow
> reduces the likeliness of another extremely successful ISP
> implementation based on it.
> 
> Although Google (in
> http://www.pam2010.ethz.ch/papers/full-length/15.pdf) and other
> measurements classify AS12322's traffic as native, it is 6RD behind the
> scenes.
> 
> If the argument is that IPv6 "native" should be the preferred solution
> over "tunneled", it does not hold water. If you were to remove 6to4 and
> 6RD from the picture, that would set us back 10 years ago in terms of
> IPv6 adoption.
> 
> Michel.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]