REPLY: 4431.fidonetipv6@4:902/26 2172d29c   
   MSGID: 2:310/31 5d1de0a3   
   CHRS: LATIN-1 2   
   TZUTC: 0200   
   TID: hpt/lnx 1.9.0-cur 2019-01-08   
   Hi Fernando!   
      
   21 Jun 2019 22:58, from Fernando Toledo -> Fidonet.IPV6:   
      
    FT> i thinking on switch the actual he.net tunnel to 6to4   
      
   Very bad idea.   
   6to4 is very unreliable!   
      
   The 6to4 endpoints are found by BGP routing, and they are very badly   
   maintained.   
      
    FT> 1) is possible to use this 6to4 and route my lan? if true, wich prefix   
    FT>  value must be add into radvd?   
      
   Yes ... it should be possible to use the IPv4 derived prefix.   
      
    FT> 2) i see that the interface setup i need to mandatory add the local   
    FT> public ipv4 address   
      
    FT> iface 6to4 inet6 6to4   
    FT>      local 190.19.234.64   
      
    FT> then ifup 6to4 and works fine.   
      
    FT> my ipv4 address are dynamic,   
      
   Then I highly discourage you to use 6to4.   
   (Even with a static IPv4! but much more with a dynamic v4)   
      
    FT> so i think that must be create the 6to4   
    FT> interface manually (scripts that detect the ipv4 and use it) instead   
    FT> of /etc/network/interfaces (debian if/up/down). Can you provide some   
    FT> example?   
      
   Change to a tunnel server that is geographically closer to you.   
      
   Just ping a bunch of them, and add a new tunnel to the server with the lowest   
   latency!   
      
   CU, Ricsi   
      
   ... He sets low standards and then consistently fails to achieve them.   
   --- GoldED+/LNX   
    * Origin: I don't have a solution but I admire the problem! (2:310/31)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/123 15/2 154/10 203/0 221/0 226/17 229/354 426 1014 240/5832   
   SEEN-BY: 249/206 317 400 280/464 5003 5006 5555 292/854 310/31 317/3   
   SEEN-BY: 322/757 342/200 423/120 633/280 712/848 770/1 2452/250 3828/7   
   SEEN-BY: 5020/545   
   PATH: 310/31 280/464 229/426