Hi! Thanks a lot for you reply.
On 08.11.2016 22:56, teor wrote: > No, that's a ticket related to private IPv6 addresses on test networks. Yes, I used the wrong URL. > You want this one, which is not fixed: > https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/5940 Maybe it will be fixed or something in this direction. > Address autodetection is error-prone. That sounds logical. Also, if you have configured IPv6 privacy extensions. > IPv4 address autodetection is the source of many accidental > misconfigurations by relay operators. Especially, if you are behind a CGN and your ISP DNS returns an private IPv4 address. > better for operators to select a routable IPv6 address. That's the way I've configured it in the past. > It probably is best to avoid configuring IPv6, or get a better ISP. It depends. If you only have the choice between cable or xDSL networks. I would be happy, if I could get a Gigabit connection for an affordable price to spend more bandwidth. But the EU is sometimes like an underdeveloped country. They call it: "Connecting Europe" or Digital Single Market (DAE 2020). > (There's no reason for an ISP to change prefixes for IPv6, they should > have plenty of address space. Sounds like they're treating it just > like IPv4.) Hmm, I've called some technicians of the ISP, they said, that they have disabled IPv6 in some of there modems, because of issues. And it's a relative new thing. My answer was, that the RFC 2460 exists since 1998. That's a really innovation. Regards, _______________________________________________ tor-relays mailing list tor-relays@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-relays