[colug-432] no new tunnels from SixXS
jpreston at redhat.com
Sun Jan 31 20:37:43 EST 2016
Funny, I just asked my ISP (WOW! Internet and Cable) about IPv6 support and
got the default canned response of "our engineers are working on it, and
expect it to be available at the end of the year". Which ironically they
have been saying for at least the past two years.
I am able to request a new IPv6 Tunnel on HE -- though not sure how much
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Rick Troth <rmt at casita.net> wrote:
> I just learned that SixXS is no longer doling out tunnels. Sad, but
> Since *most ISPs now offer native IPv6*, most wwould-be SixXS customers
> don't need SixXS anymore.
> Here's the story.
> I was on their site looking for something else and happened to click the
> "Request tunnel" link. Got this:
> SixXS is in Call-Your-ISP-for-IPv6 mode
> Currently SixXS is *not* accepting signups, nor tunnel or subnet
> We are doing this action to ensure that instead of going the easy way of
> using our service for IPv6 connectivity, you instead *Call your ISP for
> This in the hope that they finally realize that it is 2016 already, that
> IPv6 is 20 years old, IPv4 adresses have run out, and that they really
> should have deployed IPv6 natively to their users during the last decade
> instead of waiting till the last modem ever.
> Thus: *Call your ISP for IPv6*!
> Got the same message from their "Request subnet" link. The related article
> on the SixXS site is ...
> The up-side is that many (most? all?) *ISPs now provide native IPv6*.
> SixXS long term goal has always been to see the project shut down, no
> longer needed.
> Their mode change is intended to close a supposed loophole. (SixXS team
> believes some network providers are blowing off IPv6 support because up to
> now consumers could "call SixXS for IPv6!" ... politics!)
> The down-side is that you might have to take extra steps for *static IPv6
> That's more of a problem with consumer service (history of dynamic
> addressing) than with commercial service.
> Consumer internet tends to be dynamic. (But is that necessary w/ IPv6?)
> Tunnels tend to be static.
> A couple years ago, I was trying to re-build AICCU on Linux/390. I reached
> out to Jeroen Massar (one of the SixXS principals and AICCU author). He
> commented that it seemed silly since mainframes are more likely to have
> commercial internet service including static IPv6. I didn't tell him that
> it's standard with Linux/390 distros. Never had time to complete that port
> and used an Hurricane Electric (HE) tunnel on the system in question. HE
> tunnels require manual intervention, but if your IPv4 address is stable the
> tunnel is too.
> Hurricane Electric
> I haven't checked with HE to see if they're still offering new tunnels.
> -- R; <><
> colug-432 mailing list
> colug-432 at colug.net
Josh Preston, RHCE <https://people.redhat.com/jpreston>
Cloud Infrastructure Solutions Architect
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the colug-432