Why does a not-pinging static IPv6 tunnel cost so much ISK?
Shadow Hawkins on Thursday, 31 July 2014 11:30:19
What does a not-pinging static tunnel do, that makes it cost so much?
Does a static tunnel have advantages over a dynamic tunnel that make it worth it? I'm asking, because I have a server with a static IPv4 address whether a dynamic tunnel is still the better choice for this setup.
Why does a not-pinging static IPv6 tunnel cost so much ISK?
Jeroen Massar on Thursday, 31 July 2014 14:29:46 What does a not-pinging static tunnel do, that makes it cost so much?
The prime reason is that it is static, hence it should always work.
If it does not respond, it is very likely that the PoP is sending packets to an unsuspecting target, which might mean we get an abuse report, and thus that costs us time to resolve.
Does a static tunnel have advantages over a dynamic tunnel that make it worth it?
Static tunnels have no management overhead.
I'm asking, because I have a server with a static IPv4 address whether a dynamic tunnel is still the better choice for this setup.
Why would you bother with a dynamic tunnel if nothing is dynamic?
Why does a not-pinging static IPv6 tunnel cost so much ISK?
Shadow Hawkins on Thursday, 31 July 2014 21:27:31 Why would you bother with a dynamic tunnel if nothing is dynamic?
That's why I was asking, because I thought that a static tunnel would be a risk (because of high cost) and in turn thought that a dynamic tunnel (using AYIYA) would be a better solution in general (for dynamic as well as static IPv4 addresses), but your explanation makes a lot of sense.
Thank you!
Why does a not-pinging static IPv6 tunnel cost so much ISK?
Jeroen Massar on Friday, 01 August 2014 08:20:26
Wilhelm Schuster wrote:
Why would you bother with a dynamic tunnel if nothing is dynamic?
That's why I was asking, because I thought that a static tunnel would be a risk (because of high cost) and in turn thought that a dynamic tunnel (using AYIYA) would be a better solution in general (for dynamic as well as static IPv4 addresses), but your explanation makes a lot of sense.
Thank you!
Why does a not-pinging static IPv6 tunnel cost so much ISK?
Shadow Hawkins on Tuesday, 14 October 2014 00:55:24
Firstly, Thank You for 3 years of great service. I have had some minor glitches along the way but you have always been very helpful in those times.
Jeroen Massar wrote:
Why would you bother with a dynamic tunnel if nothing is dynamic?
Jeroen, respectfully, while your statement makes perfect sense in a perfect world there are some real world issues that need to be considered.
I have a fully static IPv4 network and for quite some time ran static tunnels. About a year ago however my ISP (AT&T) pushed out a firmware update to my router (Required, I cannot have my static addresses without their router) which included software that intercepeted all the ICMP packets and handled them internally. Hence my hosts on static IPv4 addresses were effectively cut off from the outside world of IPv6. I went round and round with AT&T but there was no way to downgrade the firmware or route the tunnel maintenance packets to the proper hosts. I was thus forced to change all my tunnels to dynamic so that the maintenance packets were tunneled past the router.
To this date AT&T still has no native IPv6 service in my area but they have effectively killed my ability to maintain a static tunnel.
I'm just pointing out that with all the parties involved in the migration to IPv6 there often exist situations that do not neatly fit into the best case scenario. Like AT&T rolling out their support in bite sized chuncks that effectively chop existing solutions such as your fantastic tunnel service off at the knees.
Why does a not-pinging static IPv6 tunnel cost so much ISK?
Jeroen Massar on Tuesday, 14 October 2014 08:24:13 I have a fully static IPv4 network and for quite some time ran static tunnels. About a year ago however my ISP (AT&T) pushed out a firmware update to my router (Required, I cannot have my static addresses without their router) which included software that intercepeted all the ICMP packets and handled them internally. Hence my hosts on static IPv4 addresses were effectively cut off from the outside world of IPv6.
What does ICMP(v4) have to do with static IPv6 tunnels not pinging?
I went round and round with AT&T but there was no way to downgrade the firmware or route the tunnel maintenance packets to the proper hosts.
What "tunnel maintenance packets"?
I was thus forced to change all my tunnels to dynamic so that the maintenance packets were tunneled past the router.
What kind of dynamic do you mean? heartbeat or AYIYA?
To this date AT&T still has no native IPv6 service in my area but they have effectively killed my ability to maintain a static tunnel.
What you are likely meaning is that AT&T is blocking protocol-41 based tunnels.
Complain to your Internet provider that they are not delivering you unfiltered Internet access.
I'm just pointing out that with all the parties involved in the migration to IPv6 there often exist situations that do not neatly fit into the best case scenario. Like AT&T rolling out their support in bite sized chuncks that effectively chop existing solutions such as your fantastic tunnel service off at the knees.
As AYIYA works, I do not see a problem.
Posting is only allowed when you are logged in. |