<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.28.3">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
On Fri, 2013-03-08 at 11:09 +1100, Karl Auer wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
On Fri, 2013-03-08 at 09:57 +1100, Geoff Huston wrote:
> IPv6-over-IPv4 Tunnels are perhaps worse than not doing it at all.
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
*nods*, once again Geoff is right.<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
> You are far better off avoiding tunnels.
> Really.
Not at the cost of waiting, even longer, to start deploying IPv6. The
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
Your argument might ring true, if the use stats were reversed, ie: 99.999999999999999999999r % of the world used ipv6 and SFA used ipv4, but thats not the case, tunnels might be cute to play with and get familiar, but its a hopeless joke otherwise, and best waiting for native introduction.<BR>
<BR>
My private web server on a tunnel, and, for 3 years prior where I ran it on a U.S. VPS dual stacked, all up, I could count on two hands the grand total number of ipv6 hosts that have hit it, ever! One regular to my blog who's on internode is ipv6, the others are likely spambots, hell, not even googlebot hits it with ipv6.<BR>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>