On killing IPv6 transition mechanisms
ivan at main.uusia.org
Sun Mar 21 13:16:03 CET 2010
>>>>> Alex Broque <broquea at he.net> writes:
>>>>> Ivan Shmakov wrote:
>> I know the difference. The problem is that HE.net offers just a few
>> /64, and I need somewhat larger address space. And they don't seem
>> to offer reverse DNS, which is available for 6to4.
> Just want to clarify some points. We've offered reverse DNS
> delegation for the /64 statically routed subnet since at least 2003,
> although it was a lot more manual configuration on our side back
> then. Then the /48 subnets since early 2008, which ushered in a more
> automated process for delegation for both /64 and /48 subnets. And
> yes, those are the only subnets that the user gets delegation control
So, I've set up an rDNS zone for my home /64 network. (Still
have to submit the KSK to https://dlv.isc.org/.)
>> Well, it seems that HE.net operates a 6to4 relay that's open for
>> those subscribed to their 6in4 service.
> These are actually publicly available relays, and not limited to our
> tunnelbroker.net users. Those users obviously would be using static
> tunnels from that service, not tunnels based on the 6to4 well known
> anycasted ranges.
BTW, I've checked it and it indeed works for those IPv4
addresses that weren't configured as tunnel endpoints on
tunnelbroker.net. Most probably I was bitten by some other
issue while trying to configure it earlier. (Perhaps it has
something to do with the fact that while I'm sending packets to
a unicast IPv4, I still get replies from an anycast address.)
For now, I have set up ::/0 routes over both 6to4 and 6in4
tunnels, so that a few hosts that were previosly unavailable
(like packages.debian.org and tools.ietf.org) now work.
FSF associate member #7257
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20100321/0b23d322/attachment.bin
More information about the ipv6-ops