<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I just learned that SixXS is no longer doling out tunnels. Sad, but
expected. <br>
Since <u>most ISPs now offer native IPv6</u>, most wwould-be SixXS
customers don't need SixXS anymore. <br>
<br>
Here's the story. <br>
I was on their site looking for something else and happened to click
the "Request tunnel" link. Got this: <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>
<h1>SixXS is in Call-Your-ISP-for-IPv6 mode</h1>
<p>
Currently SixXS is <i>not</i> accepting signups, nor tunnel or
subnet requests.
</p>
<p>
We are doing this action to ensure that instead of going the
easy way of using our service for IPv6 connectivity, you instead
<b>Call your ISP for IPv6</b>.
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
Thus: <b>Call your ISP for IPv6</b>!
</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Got the same message from their "Request subnet" link. The related
article on the SixXS site is ... <br>
<br>
<blockquote><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.sixxs.net/news/2015/#callyourispforipv6-1201">https://www.sixxs.net/news/2015/#callyourispforipv6-1201</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The up-side is that many (most? all?) <u>ISPs now provide native
IPv6</u>. <br>
SixXS long term goal has always been to see the project shut down,
no longer needed. <br>
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!) <br>
<br>
The down-side is that you might have to take extra steps for <u>static
IPv6 addressing</u>. <br>
That's more of a problem with consumer service (history of dynamic
addressing) than with commercial service. <br>
Consumer internet tends to be dynamic. (But is that necessary w/
IPv6?) Tunnels tend to be static. <br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>SixXS<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.sixxs.net/">https://www.sixxs.net/</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote>Hurricane Electric<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.tunnelbroker.net/">https://www.tunnelbroker.net/</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I haven't checked with HE to see if they're still offering new
tunnels. <br>
<br>
-- R; <><<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>