> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > However, for what it matters here, 6rd is native after > exiting from the ISP, same as 6to4 is native after > exiting from the 6to4 relay. As we may not be able to > know how "much" of the "native" IPv6 traffic is 6rd in > the last mile, I think we should consider all 6rd traffic > as native for those measurements, otherwise, we will be > biasing the data. Even it may be the case of an ISP using > 6rd for some part of its network, and native for the other. > We may need to state "IPv6 native as measured, may be > encapsulated in the last mile". I disagree. 6RD is not a last mile solution. With the existing levels of IPv6 traffic, an ISP would deploy a couple of 6RD relays at their main IX. In a country such as France, it means that a 6RD customer in Nice would see their IPv6 traffic being encapsulated all the way to Paris over IPv4 crossing the entire ISP's network for some 400 miles. In Spain, the really native part of the traffic would possibly start in Madrid. Imagine 2 customers in Barcelona, who are with two different ISPs using 6RD. The 6RD relays are in Madrid for both, likely not much more than a few miles away or even possibly in the same IX (I don't know the details of IXes in Madrid). The 6RD traffic from one goes over IPv4 all the way to Madrid, then goes native for a few miles to the other ISP's 6RD relay, then back over IPv4 to Barcelona. This is not native. On top of it, like any other tunnel solution, it stinks because the IPv6 traffic goes back all the way to Madrid while, if it was IPv4, there is a good possibility that the two ISPs are peering in Barcelona in a small colo and the traffic never leaves the town. The obvious: the solution is, duh, native IPv6 in Barcelona and the reason ISPs are deploying 6RD is, duh, because they don't have it. As mentioned before by Christian and other, 6RD is very similar to a tunnel broker deployment, and the number and location of relays change everything. > Philip Homburg wrote: > At the moment, I have 5 IPv6 connections: > 1) native > 2) tunnel to my ISP > 3) tunnel to HE > 4) tunnel to SixXS > 5) 6to4 > Obviously, the first one is native and the others aren't, Then we agree. > Roger Jørgensen wrote: > It mean IPv4 running on top of IPv6, IPv6 running on top > of IPv4 is not native. But this easy way of seeing it > only affect IPv4 and IPv6, not all of the others. I could go for that; native IPv6 mostly means "no IPv4" for the agreed scope. But I was trying to be more generic, the idea being to prevent a clever marketing droid finding a way to tunnel IPv6 over avian carriers and calling it native. > I guess it all boils down to, are we talking about end > to end native, or the transportation of the L3 protocol > being native? If I understand you correctly (I think I do) I would say it ends up being the same thing. What we want is no reliance on IPv4, what we don't want is limit implementation options. How good is a native IPv6 network if it has to be redone when decommissioning IPv4? That's where the oxymoron is. I think a good way to see it would be: remove all IPv4 end-to-end. If it still works, it's native IPv6. If not, it's not native. Michel. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf