[AusNOG] IPv6: Where's my tunnel?

[Mattia Rossi]

Am 08.03.2013 10:47, schrieb Karl Auer:
> On Fri, 2013-03-08 at 09:30 +0100, Mattia Rossi wrote:
>> I think it's your call, whether you want to risk the possibility to run
>> into this problem
> What "risk"? A tiny percentage of IPv6 connections may not work, out of
> the currently tiny percentage of sites on the Internet running IPv6.
> This "risk" is being blown completely out of proportion - a classic FUD
> manouevre.
Most likely it's blown out of proportion, in the current global v6 
situation.
But we know that there could be situations where you risk to lose
(very few, maybe just one) customers, because for them your website
simply doesn't work.
Then it depends what that means to you. If you get one customer
with that problem, and it's a hugely important customer
(i.e. the manager of a company which servers you host),
then it's a risk, I'd say. But everyone needs to make this call himself,
and figure out the likelihood of such a situation.
That was what I meant.
>
> It is important to get into IPv6, and if a managed tunnel is needed to
> get you there, go for it. It will work, and it will work well.
>
>> My suggestion to Don is to tunnel if there's really no chance at all to
>> get IPv6 otherwise, rather than doing nothing
> Yes. At least we agree on that. Geoff was saying the exact opposite.
>
I can understand Geoff, because you risk to end up with a lot of people
using tunnels and not pushing for native v6, because it works
so well, when it actually doesn't work so well.
That tunnels work well, is just an artefact caused by the small
amount of users on v6.
But I disagree with Geoff and agree with you about the fact that tunnels 
are _so_  bad,
that you should rather stay on v4 than using a tunnel to get v6.
Just be aware that tunnels have tradeoffs, and don't forget to go native 
v6 when it's available.

Cheers,

Mat