Re: IPv6 6to4 and dns

[Franck Martin <franck () genius com>]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Oberman" <oberman () es net>
> To: "Franck Martin" <franck () genius com>
> Cc: "Jeroen van Aart" <jeroen () 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 <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.

And the main issues, it is a hell to debug to find out which one needs to be fixed or taken out.