Hurricane Electric's IPv6 Tunnel Broker Forums

Advanced search  

News:

Welcome to Hurricane Electric's Tunnelbroker.net forums!

Author Topic: Need for an IPv6 disinformation debunking blog?  (Read 1849 times)

kasperd

  • Founder, Netiter ApS
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 956
Need for an IPv6 disinformation debunking blog?
« on: January 22, 2014, 01:53:33 PM »

I watched this video and wondered, should I start a blog where I debunk one piece of IPv6 misinformation each day?
Logged

broquea

  • Sr. Network Engineer, HE.NET AS6939
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1731
Re: Need for an IPv6 disinformation debunking blog?
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2014, 02:00:39 PM »

Wow, was that a computer generated voice? That was painful. You should do a YT video reply to it, as a correction. I mean really, where was the "teredo relay" in all of that?
Logged

kasperd

  • Founder, Netiter ApS
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 956
Re: Need for an IPv6 disinformation debunking blog?
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2014, 02:26:55 PM »

Wow, was that a computer generated voice? That was painful.
It wasn't the voice, which I found painful, it was the sentences being uttered.

You should do a YT video reply to it, as a correction.
I'd have to learn how to do that first. If I did a reply, it wouldn't be great on the presentation side, but I should could beat that video on correctness.

I think I'd feel more like doing a video on how to achieve reliable communication between Teredo and 6to4. In the past I thought, that was something, which could not be done. But with the knowledge I have now, I have realized, that it is actually possible with a minimal effort.

I mean really, where was the "teredo relay" in all of that?
I don't know if the router being presented in that video was supposed to be a Teredo client, a Teredo relay or a 6in4 router. Depending on which of the three you assume, you'll find different parts of the information being incorrect. I did not find any information in the video, which would have been incorrect in all three cases.
Logged