<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
On 3/1/11 10:04 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTinph9AJT1GR1-gvG62iCY9PYHXmVfNF6m1T3vD9@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Injecting some reality into this conversation...
<br>
<br>
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, <b class="moz-txt-star"><span
class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>combined<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b>.
<br>
<br>
Further, 6to4 and Teredo traffic <b class="moz-txt-star"><span
class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>far exceeds<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b>
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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
In other news:
<br>
<br>
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 ( <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://bgp.he.net/ipv6-progress-report.cgi">http://bgp.he.net/ipv6-progress-report.cgi</a>
). I attribute this to the IPv6 network guys not being locked into
whatever suboptimal purchasing policies that are enforced for their
IPv4 transit purchases. <span class="moz-smiley-s3" title=";)"><span>;)</span></span>
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.<br>
<br>
Mike.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>