Just a sample of the Echomail archive
Cooperative anarchy at its finest, still active today. Darkrealms is the Zone 1 Hub.
|    IPV6    |    The convoluted hot-mess that is IPV6    |    4,612 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 2,966 of 4,612    |
|    Fernando Toledo to Richard Menedetter    |
|    Re: switching from he.net to 6to4 questi    |
|    09 Jul 19 20:25:16    |
      TZUTC: -0300       MSGID: 4436.fidonetipv6@4:902/26 218a69b0       REPLY: 2:310/31 5d1de0a3       PID: Synchronet 3.17c-Linux Jul 8 2019 GCC 4.9.2       TID: SBBSecho 3.07-Linux r3.117 Jul 8 2019 GCC 4.9.2       El 4/7/19 a las 08:15, Richard Menedetter escribió:       > 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!              ok!              >        > 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!       >              ok. i will test wich change the tunnel server.       thanks for your reply!                            > 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)       >       --- SBBSecho 3.07-Linux        * Origin: Dock Sud BBS - http://bbs.docksud.com.ar (4:902/26)       SEEN-BY: 1/19 123 14/5 15/0 2 16/0 19/36 34/999 90/1 116/18 120/331       SEEN-BY: 123/130 131 128/2 153/7715 154/10 203/0 218/700 221/0 1 360       SEEN-BY: 226/17 229/354 426 1014 230/0 150 152 240/1120 5832 249/206       SEEN-BY: 249/317 400 250/1 261/38 100 267/155 275/100 280/464 5003       SEEN-BY: 280/5006 5555 282/1031 1056 291/1 111 292/854 310/31 317/3       SEEN-BY: 320/119 219 322/0 757 340/400 342/13 200 423/120 633/280       SEEN-BY: 640/1384 712/848 770/1 801/189 2320/105 2452/250 3634/12       SEEN-BY: 3828/7 5020/545       PATH: 902/26 27 90/1 261/38 320/219 221/1 280/464 229/426           |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca