Re: quality of v6 connections [Re: unmanaged scope comments]

[Marc Blanchet <Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.qc.ca>]

-- mardi, septembre 24, 2002 16:54:04 +0300 Pekka Savola
<pekkas@netcore.fi> wrote/a écrit:

> 6bone is what we have.

we have more than 6bone. one good way to differentiate is: 
 6bone = 3ffe::/16. ipv6 internet = 2001::/16.
> 
> Saying it is not "ipv6 internet" won't change the truth, unfortunately.  

sorry, but in the networks I'm controlling or involved, there is a clear
distinction between the two:
- production = 2001::/16, reliable connections, v6 native if possible
- test/experiment = 3ffe::/16, experimental code from vendors, testing new
mechanisms, etc....

> We have a small, with a couple of million potential users, native IPv6
> network in Europe too, called 6NET, but I wouldn't go as far as calling
> that "ipv6 internet" either.
> 
> One must either acknowledge that or live in a dream world thinking we
> have  good connections, "ipv6 internet" is doing well etc.
> 
> And how we can fix that?  Start building real v6 connections and start 
> ignoring 6bone.

I'll rephrase: start building production v6 networks and use only 6bone for
experimental work.

>  But there is no IPv6 internet other than 6bone yet.  

some. more coming, I agree...

What I'm trying to say is that the current 6bone should not be seen as a
model or a reference of the "ipv6 internet". it is a testbed, experimental
network, crash and burn, ...

Marc.



> Sorry.
> 
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>> -- mardi, septembre 24, 2002 09:36:29 +0300 Pekka Savola
>> <pekkas@netcore.fi> wrote/a écrit:
>> 
>> > I'll revisit this due to a private comment.
>> > 
>> > Perhaps I should clarify this a bit.
>> > 
>> > Your take seems to be "how do we solve this problem given the network
>> > and  v6 connectivity we have".
>> > 
>> > Mine is basically "we have a problem with network connectivity and v6
>> > and with the current state, turning v6 on for everything will produce
>> > dissatisfied users".
>> > 
>> > With "network connectivity" I'm referring to the 6bone mess.
>> 
>> 6bone = experimental network.  6bone is not the IPv6 internet.
>> 
>> > 
>> > People usually just say, "enable IPv6" but it's more complex that.  As
>> > an  user that actually uses IPv6 quite a bit, I'd be very hesitant to
>> > enable  full use in a generic form.
>> > 
>> > I'm not sure whether trying to solve this is in our charter or not (or 
>> > even if it was, would we be able to do anything), but that's one real 
>> > problem.  6bone mess is hindering IPv6 deployment.
>> 
>> not really. 
>> 
>> > 
>> > FWIW, I think 6bone addresses etc. are useful to get people started
>> > and  acquainted with IPv6.  But tunnel-to-everyone,
>> > transit-to-everyone mess is  not.  Those 6bone sites should be
>> > connected as leaf sites to proper  connectivity providers.
>> 
>> s/6bone/internet ipv6/
>> 
>> Marc.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
> Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
> Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
> 



------------------------------------------
Marc Blanchet
Viagénie
tel: +1-418-656-9254x225

------------------------------------------
http://www.freenet6.net: IPv6 connectivity
------------------------------------------
http://www.normos.org: IETF(RFC,draft),
  IANA,W3C,... standards.
------------------------------------------