[***SPAM***] RE: [afripv6-discuss] What have you done for IPv6 lately, since the 1st of January, 2013?

[Latif LADID ("The New Internet based on IPv6")]

Folks,

You don't need native to use v6 at this stage as a v6 tunnel offers exactly
the same service at least for testing purposes. Hurricane, gogo6 (or gondle)
or SixXS prove that anyone can offer v6 service worldwide and represent the
first breaker of that chicken & egg drama.

If we all do this we have a case to show any ISP that he is going to lose
potential v6 business.

FREE in France offered v6 service after 10,000 signatures were collected
required by FREE and then 6rd was implemented.

No need to convince me that v6 native is better, I have it on Fiber (30Mbps)
at home, simply convincing my ISP to give me that service. But It took major
political decisions at ISP board level and government as shareholder.

________________Latif

-----Original Message-----
From: afripv6-discuss-bounces at afrinic.net
[mailto:afripv6-discuss-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Carlos M. Martinez
Sent: Mittwoch, 20. Februar 2013 13:25
To: IPv6 in Africa
Cc: Nishal Goburdhan
Subject: Re: [afripv6-discuss] What have you done for IPv6 lately, since the
1st of January, 2013?

Supporting Nishal's view, my ISP in Uruguay (incumbent, DSL monopoly) has
deployed a 6RD relay in its network, using old Cisco gear and I've taken
part, together with some other people, in trying it.

The good news is that it works very, very well. Performance is almost on-par
with native IPv6 and when using a Cisco E1500 as home router, the tunnel
even gets re-started when the IPv4 address of my end changes.

So, yes, while native should be our medium/long term goal, tunneled
solutions can serve as short-term bridges into the future.

Warm regards,

~Carlos

On 2/20/13 7:22 AM, Nishal Goburdhan wrote:
> On 20 Feb 2013, at 12:02 PM, SM <sm at resistor.net> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Mark,
>> At 08:00 19-02-2013, Mark Elkins wrote:
>>> Careful, www.co.za is indeed IPv4 only - but has nothing to do with 
>>> the registry business in South Africa.
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>> The consumer end of the IPv6 problem in South Africa seems to be with the
"IP connect" used for the ADSL access.
> 
> 
> more correctly:
> "the barrier to delivering native IPv6 services to..."
> 
> ISPs that offer DSL services in ZA are still able to offer IPv6, albeit
tunnelled.  
> my, to-date tunnelled, service to home has not shown me network related
problems, in the "network part" of the service i receive.
> there is, of course, incongruency in the manner that content is available
over IPv4 and IPv6.
> 
> one example is below:
> katala:~ nishal$ ping -c2 www.cisco.com PING e144.dscb.akamaiedge.net 
> (88.221.240.170): 56 data bytes
> 64 bytes from 88.221.240.170: icmp_seq=0 ttl=60 time=31.248 ms
> 64 bytes from 88.221.240.170: icmp_seq=1 ttl=60 time=43.125 ms
> --- e144.dscb.akamaiedge.net ping statistics ---
> 2 packets transmitted, 2 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip 
> min/avg/max/stddev = 31.248/37.187/43.125/5.938 ms
> 
> katala:~ nishal$ ping6 -c2 www.cisco.com
> PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2c0f:fc00:a000:1010:9953:b7f2:be57:56b0 --> 
> 2a02:26f0:32:2:8100::90
> 16 bytes from 2a02:26f0:32:2:8100::90, icmp_seq=0 hlim=244 
> time=190.837 ms
> 16 bytes from 2a02:26f0:32:2:8100::90, icmp_seq=1 hlim=244 
> time=193.521 ms
> --- e144.dscb.akamaiedge.net ping6 statistics ---
> 2 packets transmitted, 2 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip 
> min/avg/max/std-dev = 190.837/192.179/193.521/1.342 ms
> 
> ...
> 
> --n._______________________________________________
> afripv6-discuss mailing list
> afripv6-discuss at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/afripv6-discuss
> 
_______________________________________________
afripv6-discuss mailing list
afripv6-discuss at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/afripv6-discuss