North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Apple Airport Extreme IPv6 problems?

  • Date: Sat Sep 15 12:58:09 2007

I think we will never move to IPv6 if vendors don't do things like the one
in the Airport. However, in order to make this "transition" phase where
there may be a possible degradation of the RTT, we need to cooperation of
the operators, for example deploying 6to4 relays in their networks.

As many 6to4 relays exists (even if they are closed only to the customers of
that network), less this will be problem.

I understand that sometimes is not easy to provide native IPv6 services, but
deploying a 6to4 relay (same as a Teredo Relay) is a very simple and
inexpensive step, but it helps a lot.

In regions such as Africa and LAC, where upstream b/w is expensive, I'm
helping the ISPs to setup those, in order to avoid traffic going thru the
upstream links and staying local.

Remember that even if we don't have products such the Airport, our customers
have OS which come with IPv6 enabled by default and they try 6to4 or Teredo
when they don't have native connectivity, so is not a problem that we can
hide from. We really need to move one step forward and avoid support calls,
for example.


> De: Barrett Lyon <[email protected]>
> Responder a: <[email protected]>
> Fecha: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 09:05:43 -0700
> Para: <[email protected]>
> Asunto: Apple Airport Extreme IPv6 problems?
> Apple is nice enough to provide an automatic v6 tunnel from their new
> Airport Extreme units.  They even get all the machines on the network
> to participate -- by default!  At first this did not seem to be much
> of an issue, it was even pretty cool.
> However, I noticed as I roll out more v6 services to support native
> v6 users, I am impacting the network performance of almost all of the
> Apple airport population that has an inefficient tunnel
> configuration.  The user obviously will take the AAAA v6 published IP
> over the v4 A record.
> Don't get me wrong v6 tunnels are great, when you opt-in and know
> what you are getting into.  For example, my grandparents tunnel in
> California goes to Virginia.  This impacts the user experience rather
> significantly with the first hop being nearly 100ms where their
> services to California are ~20ms.  It's painful for a lot of users,
> especially when they don't even know what's going on.
> Has anyone else ran into this?  It's not pretty for a CDN or anyone
> trying to provide a quality service over v6, shunting users over
> inefficiently tunneled routes does not sit well with me.  I think
> Apple has made a mistake by enabling this by default.
> -Barrett