And now, for your regularly scheduled dose of broken ipv6 routing...

Carlos Friacas cfriacas at
Fri Sep 22 10:16:55 CEST 2006


Yes. IPv6 routing is still a big piece of <you know what!>...

IMHO, current status will only change when people start to put their 
money in front of their mouth. As a customer, if you don't care about IPv6 
routing as much as you care for IPv4 routing, the status quo will not 

One other thing that should help in my view would be shutting down all the 
services that freely provide IPv6 transit (and mostly with a dramatic 
performance associated with it!). This "availability" not only drives 
people to think that IPv6 is still a toy for some, and not a production 
driven service. And of course, this fact also doesn't encourage the 
biggest transit providers to go into IPv6.

If one notices that a given route is unreachable (or with a very bad 
end-to-end performance), the normal behaviour would be complaining 
to your upstream provider(s). And how many times that happens when the 
routing issue is exclusively related with IPv6??? :-(((

At this point, and on the given circumstances, i'm even surprised to see 
how many transit providers have the IPv6 option in their services' 

Recently i've started to measure v4 and v6 latency to the same host (or to 
the same name with both A and AAAA records) and found that it's really, 
really hard to find names with both A and AAAA in some countries (and yes, 
*even* in the academic communities...)

For what i've seen so far, the measurements i get with a smaller 
difference than 1ms between v4 & v6 are from other NRENs (to be more 
accurate... 13 of them to the date). Could be better, could be worse...

Best Regards,

./Carlos                                               Skype: cf916183694
          Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN
FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional

  "Internet is just routes (196663/675), naming (millions) and... people!"

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Jeroen Massar wrote:

> Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> Oh my!
>> At least the pktloss is down from an irritating 93% to a more acceptable 16%.
> [..]
>> pancake:/home/nick> traceroute6
>> traceroute6 to (2001:610:240:0:a843::8) from 2001:bb0:ccc0:1::44, 64 hops max, 12 byte packets
>>  1  2001:bb0:ccc0:1::1  0.336 ms  0.163 ms  0.128 ms
>>  2  44.168 ms  41.373 ms  43.009 ms
>>  3  62.928 ms  58.672 ms  59.848 ms
>>  4  154.586 ms  159.475 ms  156.289 ms
>>  5  2001:440:eeee:ffc8::2  232.806 ms  232.858 ms  231.715 ms
>>  6  2001:450:2001:1000:0:670:1708:219  233.530 ms  310.736 ms  231.747 ms
>>  7  233.496 ms  235.718 ms  237.707 ms
>>  8  3ffe:81d0:ffff:1::  232.047 ms  229.174 ms  232.789 ms
> Wouldn't you really quickly kick sprint to NOT use as a transit?
> Clearly still lives in the times of 6bone age.
> Also why doesn't sprint have a router in Amsterdam? That would provide
> them with the route to RIPE and a lot of other good IPv6 networks.
> As you are a customer, ask them ;)
> (There is one side-effect explanation btw: filters, as the RIPE IPv6
> block is announced as a /48, which is filtered by some, and accepted
> only by the ones who can't care less. Thus quick solution: drop the /48
> and simply use the /32 towards SURFNet for super light speed connectivity ;)
> Greets,
> Jeroen

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list