[6bone] Re: routing concern

[Bill Manning]

% On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 22:01:07 +0200, Petr Baudis wrote:
% 
% > And as the time goes on, people obviously tend to sacrifice the
% > tunnel peerings for native ones and the reliability improves. The natural
% > process.
% 
% This is what we have been trying to do for the last couple of
% years, but without much success. The 6bone is still too unstable.
% Look at the OS mailing lists. End users are disabling IPv6 in
% their OS because it does not work.
% 
% We don't need a stable IPv6 network tomorrow. We need it today.
% I doubt if we can make the 6bone stable very soon.
	
	For me, I have three peers that transit native 
	v4 for me.  Due to a variety of conditions, none
	of them will run native v6 with me in a merged v4/v6
	connection.  They are -all- tunnels.

	Go figure...  why do/will commercial providers
	do this?  (hint... SLA's and problems with "converged"
	networks come to my mind... :)

	To borrow a line from the v6 panel at the last IETF,
	"what can you do with v6 that you can't do with v4?"
	
	Finding that thing for (many/most) users will drive
	v6 deployment/stability.  Or it could be that v6 is 
	not something that will boost quarterly profits...
	this quarter.  It may take several more years to
	mature.

--bill