RE: An alternative to 6to4 and teredo

["Jeroen Massar" <jeroen@unfix.org>]

Erik Nordmark wrote:

> I wonder if there is any data on the fraction of the existing tunnel
> broker clients serve more than one host. (It does at the 
> office in France.)

I can answer that very positively as seen from the SixXS perspective.
Most of the users get a tunnel and are quite sharp at getting their
subnet
delegation the week later when they get enough credits for doing so.
After that one will usually see 5+ different hosts coming from the
delegated
prefix. With 'hosts' I mean IP addresses who are surfing websites.
The 'biggest' use for subnets unfortunatly is to have a cool/vanity
hostnames on IRC though. We also tend to block out most of those users.
And as we are known for doing that most of those users stay away from
our tunnelbroker setup leaving over the more serious users and those
where exactly who we want to serve.

Personally I am quite glad with my subnet, as know all my 'internal'
hosts can simply be reached from the public internet. Usually the
places I visit and where I need IPv6 connectivity I try and convince
the local admin in getting IPv6 and usually this ends up into setting
them up with a IPv6 tunnel. Which is probably one of the advantages
of having your 'own' tunnelbroker. Then again 1/3th of my
home<->internet
consist of IPv6 which IMHO is quite a lot. It would be a lot more
if somebody convinced services like google to do IPv6 though.

Most people I know/hear talking about it have the same feeling like me
on the ground that it's quite handy to have all your hosts globally
reachable.

If you want real stats I could once setup a ntop like tool which counts
traffic per destination/source port on the IPv6 level. Then one could
really see for what IPv6 is being used. Unfortunatly I don't know of
any IPv6 aware traffic analyzers which are capable of doing this.

Greets,
 Jeroen