On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 15:27 -0400, Michael Richardson wrote: > Yes, that's right. > If you can't get native IPv6, 6to4 is better than tunnels. Don't forget that 6to4 is also a tunnel ;) Actually the most significant difference is that 6to4 makes an automatic tunnel to the remote 6to4 site, one huge problem though, you can't easily reach RIR space because you need an upstream out of 2002::/16 for that. Anyhow, if the 'tunnel' you mean is worse than 6to4 then I suggest you kick the provider of connectivity on the tunnel really and really hard or most likely easier change tunnel provider to one who does correctly take care of routing. I suggest you take a look at for instance OCCAID who are doing a great job in the US and nowadays also European region: http://www.occaid.org. If you just need connectivity, and you are in Europe you are of course also welcome to check SixXS: http://www.sixxs.net On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 13:56 -0700, Marc Singer wrote: > According to my ISP, the stall for IPv6 in the US is ARIN. They are > asking something like US$20G for an allocation--per year. The ISP > owner tells me that there just isn't sufficient demand for this to > make financial sense. Most (all?) other countries have their own > allocation policies which are not as onerous. Then your ISP is lying as when they currently have an IPv4 allocation an IPv6 allocation is for free. Point those lazy folks to this doc: http://www.arin.net/registration/guidelines/ipv6_initial_alloc.html 8<---------------------------------- Note: From the minutes of the ARIN Board of Trustees Meeting, November 9, 2004: "The ARIN Board of Trustees extends the current waiver of all IPv6 fees to all members in good standing for the period of January 1, 2005 until December 31, 2006. This waiver is not extended to any outstanding IPv6 related fees that were regularly invoiced in 2004." ---------------------------->8 Greets, Jeroen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part