Non-Managed IPv6 Tunnels considered Harmful
draft-vandevelde-v6ops-harmful-tunnels-01
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Gunter Van de Velde , Ole Trøan , Tim Chown | ||
| Last updated | 2010-08-31 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
IPv6 is ongoing and natively being deployed by a growing community and it is important that the quality perception and traffic flows are as optimal as possible. Ideally it would be as good as the IPv4 perceptive experience. This paper looks into a set of transitional technologies where the actual user has IPv6 connectivity through the means of IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnels. A subset of the available tunnels has the property of being non-managed (i.e. 6to4 [RFC3056] and Teredo [RFC4380] ). While native IPv6 deployments will keep growing it is uncertain or even expected that non-managed IPv6 tunnels will be providing the same user experience and operational quality as managed tunnels or native IPv6 connectivity. This paper will detail some considerations around non-managed tunnels and will document the harmful element of these for the future growth of networks and the Internet.
Authors
Gunter Van de Velde
Ole Trøan
Tim Chown
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)