Sprint IPv6

[Jeroen Massar]

Gert Doering wrote:
[..]
> That's not the point - the point is "tunneling hides topology", and if
> there is a problem in that topology, with tunnels, your options to 
> diagnose issues are reduced.

Point taken.

IMHO a tunnel is just a transport method, just like DSL is, which would
be IPv4 over Ethernet->ATM over a phone line, that is in effect three
levels already, and then some people tunnel add IPv6 tunnels inside that.

If one doesn't own/control/see the topology where a tunnel goes over,
for one that is just one hop. Indeed this makes diagnosing things from
an external point of view really hard.

> I'm not talking about "local" tunnels, skipping a non-IPv6-capable BRAS
> or such, but about "packets enters upstream network in Frankfurt, Germany,
> and reappears in some place in the US, and somewhere in between you 
> have a bigger-than-normal latency jump and packet loss".  

Depends on your network design of course, but I definitely would not do
that kind of setup; but I think on the level of IP mostly and not on the
layers below it.

Greets,
 Jeroen


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20081002/0aac0924/attachment.bin