----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kevin Oberman" <ober...@es.net> > To: "Franck Martin" <fra...@genius.com> > Cc: "Jeroen van Aart" <jer...@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 <fra...@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" <jer...@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.