Re: IPv6 6to4 and dns

["Kevin Oberman" <oberman () es net>]

> Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 09:36:28 +1300 (FJST)
> From: Franck Martin <franck () 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" <jeroen () 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.
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: oberman () es net                       Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4  EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751