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)
