[6bone] separating IPv6 experimental from production traffic

[Robert Kiessling]

Bill Manning <bmanning@ISI.EDU> writes:

> 	One of the promises of v6 was that -AS A TRANSITION-
> 	folks could run dual stack.  Not to pick, but
> 	the router vendors I've looked at do not have 
> 	similar code quality or feature sets between v4 and v6.

Juniper does have very high code quality for IPv6. In fact we haven't
experienced any operational problem with running it in parallel to
IPv4, in contrast to The Router Vendor on dedicated routers.

> 	Ok, JP and SURFnet.  And now the I2 network.  Waiting
> 	on  (telco/ISPs) in the US to join the party.

Non-availability of high-quality IPv6 connectivity in US is not a good
reason to mess up European and Asian progress in this area.

> % More and more OSes run IPv6 out of the box. End users start using
> % IPv6 and notice problems because there are too many routing problems
> % on the 6bone. So they switch off IPv6 again. We are scaring people
> % away from IPv6 because of the tunnel mess, old router software
> % and sites that don't monitor the transit they are giving to everyone.
> 
> 	Same was true with inital IPv4 deployment.

You are really implying that today's user community has similar
requirements to that at those times?

Today you cannot tell the users "use IPv6, and by the way, don't worry
if you don't have connectivity, it will propably come back in a couple
of days".

Robert