SixXS shutting down 2017-06-06

Tim Chown Tim.Chown at
Thu Mar 23 16:38:58 CET 2017


On 23 Mar 2017, at 15:25, Pim van Pelt <pim at<mailto:pim at>> wrote:

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Thomas Schäfer <thomas at<mailto:thomas at>> wrote:

The article sums it up quite well, and the author understood I think the rationale quite well. I've asked them to change the link at the top of their article from a WIP document that I had sent to the SixXS admin community this week, and instead point folks at which contains the rationale (also in Josh' forward upthread).

Obviously many users will be asking questions, or simply saying thanks over the next few days. I intend to engage with the IPv6 community next week, although my thoughts are kind of wrapped up in the sunset rationale here. Do let me know if you have thoughts or further discussion points. Would be happy to collate them from *NOG, ipv6-* and publish those as well.

I think SiXXS and tunnel<> have both been excellent services over the (many) years, and certainly good value for money for the users :)   Many thanks for providing it!

I understand the rationale. I’ve generally been a<> guy, but now rarely use it as I’m finding IPv6 more widely available, and have had it natively at home in the UK for a few years now. I think your observation of "SixXS is no longer able to contribute to the solution, and is hampering its own goals of facilitating the migration of consumers to native IPv6” rings true.

All the best Pim (and Jeroen!)


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list