From the dualstack-is-fun department...

Mike Leber mleber at
Wed Mar 2 10:36:08 CET 2011

My bad (I think),

I was having a little trouble following this thread and appear to 
mistaken the context of "HE tunnels".

So many IPv6 threads!!! It's awesome...  I'll go back my corner and lurk.

ps. hahahahahaha whoops.

> On 3/1/11 10:04 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>> I am not saying HE is bad in any way, i am just saying we need to go
>> real slow and be VERY grounded in reality.  The only way i can think
>> to do that is to add MUST NOT be on by default.  HE is a good
>> work-around *NOT A FIX* for broken connections.... and masking issues
>> is only ok for a short time if we are really going to follow-up and
>> fix it.  That said, lets wait for symptoms before applying the
>> tourniquet, and yes, HE is a tourniquet... but hopefully only cutting
>> off circulation on a per destination basis for a short amount of time.
> Injecting some reality into this conversation...
> The amount of native IPv6 traffic on our network far exceeds the 
> amount of traffic seen for 6to4, Teredo, statically routed 6in4, and 
> 6in4 tunnels with BGP capability, *combined*.
> Further, 6to4 and Teredo traffic *far exceeds* the traffic seen by our 
> statically routed 6in4 tunnel servers which exceeds the traffic seen 
> by the designated routers used to terminate 6in4 tunnels with BGP 
> capability.
> Anyway, the point was, the amount of IPv6 traffic on our network that 
> uses BGP IPv6 tunnel routers is miniscule by comparison to other IPv6 
> traffic sources (native or tunneled).  Just saying.  As always, we 
> highly recommend native IPv6.  The vast majority of the IPv6 BGP 
> sessions we have are native.
> In other news:
> With regards to latency of IPv6 vs IPv4, when testing to dual stacked 
> reverse DNS servers, in 782 cases out of 1300 IPv6 was faster than 
> IPv4 by more than 1 millisecond ( 
> ).  I attribute this to the 
> IPv6 network guys not being locked into whatever suboptimal purchasing 
> policies that are enforced for their IPv4 transit purchases. ;)    
> I'll work on getting latency data for dual stacked web servers as 
> well, so we can see how widespread the "IPv6 often faster than IPv4" 
> phenomena is.
> Mike.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list