[AusNOG] IPv6: Where's my tunnel?

[Karl Auer]

On Fri, 2013-03-08 at 15:40 +1000, Noel Butler wrote:
> > 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.
> *nods*, once again Geoff is right.

Hm, I'd like to see some stats on that, particularly regarding his
various prognostications about IPv6 :-)

> 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.

You've just described why tunnels are great solution right now, even if
they may not be in the future. Right now, they let you get up and
running with IPv6 quickly, while traffic levels are low and the payoff
high.

Even if you were right, which I obviously don't think you are, then why
is using tunnels just "to play with and get familiar" such a bad thing?
That's exactly what people should be doing if they can't get native IPv6
- getting tunnels and getting into IPv6 whatever way they can.

As to them being a "hopeless joke", perhaps you could explain why you
think that to be the case? Geoff's argument didn't hold water, I wonder
do yours?

> 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!

Interesting, but completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not
tunnels are a useful tool.

Regards, K.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
http://www.biplane.com.au/blog

GPG fingerprint: B862 FB15 FE96 4961 BC62 1A40 6239 1208 9865 5F9A
Old fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017