----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net> To: "Franck Martin" <franck@genius.com> Cc: "Jeroen van Aart" <jeroen@mompl.net>, "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, 23 November, 2010 12:31:47 PM Subject: Re: IPv6 6to4 and dns
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 09:36:28 +1300 (FJST) From: Franck Martin <franck@genius.com>
I use HE.NET in a few installations (with BGP) and they have good support (which is quite awesome for a free service).
As people pointed out avoid 6to4, Apple just rendered it nearly useless in its latest OS-X.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeroen van Aart" <jeroen@mompl.net> To: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, 20 November, 2010 9:07:53 AM Subject: Re: IPv6 6to4 and dns
Mark Andrews wrote:
Firstly I would use a tunnel broker instead of 6to4. Easier to debug failures.
Thanks all for the helpful response. Using the same names for IPv6 and IPv4 doesn't appear to be much of a problem, especially considering this is a trial which concerns office/home ISP connectivity, for now.
Which IPv6 tunnel broker is preferable, or does it really matter?
I'm afraid that announcements of 2002::/16 by places with non-functional or poorly connected 6to4 had already rendered it close enough to useless that I quit caring.
And the main issues, it is a hell to debug to find out which one needs to be fixed or taken out.