[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Tunnel between two IPv6 islands in an IPv4 ocean?



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


>>>>> "Martin" == Martin List-Petersen <martin@list-petersen.dk> writes:
    >> What would be the "Debian way" to set up a tunnel between two
    >> routers running Debian to connect two IPv6 islands in an
    >> otherwise IPv4 ocean?
    >> 
    >> To be a bit more specific:
    >> 
    >> There are two groups of us in my University who are experimenting
    >> with IPv6.  The rest of the University is entirely IPv4.

    Martin> Here an example /etc/network/interfaces extract:

    Martin> auto ipv6tun iface ipv6tun inet6 v4tunnel address

  What is described will work, and will work well.
  There is another way to do this, if you are planning to have more than
two end-points, is you set up the 6to4 addresses on the routers, and
then just add routes to each other.  (It just scales better, but if you
have only two sites, Martin's suggestion is as good or better)
  This has the advantage that it also gives you connectivity to the
2002: addresses directly, which are somewhat popular among IPv4-only
home users. 

- -- 
]           Bear: "Me, I'm just the shape of a bear."          |  firewalls  [
]  Michael Richardson,    Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
]mcr@xelerance.com      http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[
]panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [



  
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Finger me for keys

iQEVAwUBR3O/94CLcPvd0N1lAQLE+QgAkKK7H/7qWiQCwNSuE2AM5yR0vqFEwwI/
H3kMfBEr0PrUX5KC2ha9A7Bw1pyi/82amg9ACyQq9DDvD7k9eC9aMFxtu+RGZ+AH
GxwfxW3QiSGgdJn+jwTgQkKxMJ/I1RVdyJZPwsjSANZTf+NIr48/1u7xPI9i7pGz
DvV9Ckj7yrWaEuFfhMV48WFR/HgFMph73d73H3UYKMY7kAfYSBMrzFcWre9NCSEO
lomgikf/oDBaPBOO9iOpj15uXiN7eX93WbPWjcqmYEQUPWYy5scGceAOtTQqUZyr
nCqQvnu4cSFpNiVwray+FYVPeeAB87zUumiwYFUwSmOmCvS/lmbv/Q==
=qRuZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Reply to: