Re: Automatic tunnels

[Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi@niif.hu>]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> >> The alternative is dual-stack, but if I would be a carrier I would be
> >> very reluctant to roll-out dual-stack software (or at least to
> >> activate
> >> it) on my routers.
> >
> > I'm curious, what do you see as the main reasons for this?
> >
>
> Experience? :-) The two vendors have enough of a problem to get v4
> packets from interface A to interface B, and that is with customers
> that are paying for SLAs...
>
> I know it's being done and on pretty large networks as well. But I also
> hear people that are having problems in doing so.

You can look at several examples in Europe. GEANT, SURFNET or RENATER
already dual stacked. They have rather large network. I am sure, that they
had slight problems running dual-stack in the beginning, but they run
successfully now. On the other hand for example at HUNGARNET we also have
rather large IPv6 network, but currently we cannot run dual stack since
there is no IPv6 support at all for large number of our routers (Cisco
7600).  It seems, that we have to find alternative solution...

Regards,
	Janos Mohacsi