• switching from he.net to 6to4 question

    From Fernando Toledo@4:902/26 to Fidonet.IPV6 on Fri Jun 21 22:58:37 2019
    Hi all, i thinking on switch the actual he.net tunnel to 6to4 (to avoid
    tunnel latency) and if it are possible to do.

    my tunnel have:

    address 2001:470:1f1e:4e::2
    netmask 64

    and use radvd with:

    prefix 2001:470:1f1f:4d::1/64

    to get my lan with ipv6 too..

    this work fine, but bit slow to use ipv6

    Now, i test and setup an 6to4 interface in my debian box, and get this
    ipv6 from my internet provider:

    6to4 Link encap:IPv6-in-IPv4
    inet6 addr: 2002:be13:ea40::1/16 Scope:Global
    inet6 addr: ::190.19.234.64/96 Scope:Compat

    i have some questions:

    1) is possible to use this 6to4 and route my lan? if true, wich prefix
    value must be add into radvd?

    2) i see that the interface setup i need to mandatory add the local
    public ipv4 address

    iface 6to4 inet6 6to4
    local 190.19.234.64

    then ifup 6to4 and works fine.

    my ipv4 address are dynamic, so i think that must be create the 6to4
    interface manually (scripts that detect the ipv4 and use it) instead of /etc/network/interfaces (debian if/up/down). Can you provide some example?


    thanks! all
    --- SBBSecho 3.07-Linux
    * Origin: Dock Sud BBS - http://bbs.docksud.com.ar (4:902/26)
  • From Richard Menedetter@2:310/31 to Fernando Toledo on Thu Jul 4 13:15:32 2019
    Hi Fernando!

    21 Jun 2019 22:58, from Fernando Toledo -> Fidonet.IPV6:

    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.

    1) is possible to use this 6to4 and route my lan? if true, wich prefix
    value must be add into radvd?

    Yes ... it should be possible to use the IPv4 derived prefix.

    2) i see that the interface setup i need to mandatory add the local
    public ipv4 address

    iface 6to4 inet6 6to4
    local 190.19.234.64

    then ifup 6to4 and works fine.

    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)

    so i think that must be create the 6to4
    interface manually (scripts that detect the ipv4 and use it) instead
    of /etc/network/interfaces (debian if/up/down). Can you provide some 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)
  • From Fernando Toledo@4:902/26 to Richard Menedetter on Tue Jul 9 20:25:16 2019
    El 4/7/19 a las 08:15, Richard Menedetter escribió:
    Hi Fernando!

    21 Jun 2019 22:58, from Fernando Toledo -> Fidonet.IPV6:

    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.

    1) is possible to use this 6to4 and route my lan? if true, wich prefix
    value must be add into radvd?

    Yes ... it should be possible to use the IPv4 derived prefix.

    2) i see that the interface setup i need to mandatory add the local public ipv4 address

    iface 6to4 inet6 6to4
    local 190.19.234.64

    then ifup 6to4 and works fine.

    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)

    so i think that must be create the 6to4
    interface manually (scripts that detect the ipv4 and use it) instead
    of /etc/network/interfaces (debian if/up/down). Can you provide some 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)