= Сообщение: 6095 из 7402 ============================================= IPV6 = От : Fernando Toledo 4:902/26 09 Jul 19 20:25:16 Кому : Richard Menedetter 09 Jul 19 20:25:16 Тема : Re: switching from he.net to 6to4 question FGHI : area://IPV6?msgid=4436.fidonetipv6@4:902/26+218a69b0 На : area://IPV6?msgid=2:310/31+5d1de0a3 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: ISO-8859-3 ============================= ============================================================================== 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)
