[HN Gopher] Hurricane Electric (HE.NET) IPv6 tunnelbroker page o...
___________________________________________________________________
Hurricane Electric (HE.NET) IPv6 tunnelbroker page offline due to
expired domain
Author : luckman212
Score : 24 points
Date : 2026-03-11 13:06 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (tunnelbroker.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (tunnelbroker.net)
| luckman212 wrote:
| The popular Hurricane Electric (HE.net) IPv6 tunnel broker
| service management page is offline due to what appears to be an
| expired domain.
| Prolixium wrote:
| Is it really that popular nowadays? How many folks still use a
| tunnel broker at all in 2026?
| nticompass wrote:
| At home, my ISP gives me native IPv6. At work, we don't have
| IPv6 (or it's just disabled on the router), so I sometimes
| use one to test stuff (I use 6Project).
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| I've been thinking about starting. My current ISP (Comcast)
| has native IPv6 but you can't get a static prefix (maybe if
| you are a business class customer, IDK). It would be nice to
| have a prefix which is statically assigned to me for stuff
| that I host at home, so I've looked at doing an HE tunnel
| instead. The main drawback seems to be that some networks
| still refuse to peer with them so not everything is
| reachable.
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| > The main drawback seems to be that some networks still
| refuse to peer with them
|
| cogent gonna cogent. i think you're still probably good for
| the most part.
| RationPhantoms wrote:
| Comcast has a very strict peering policy as well. They,
| like Deutsche Telekom, like to hold their proverbial
| customers hostage to make other networks pay to peer.
| db48x wrote:
| You don't need your ISP to assign a static prefix just to
| have static addresses on your home network. Instead choose
| your own prefix inside the fd00::/8 block. There is a
| procedure using hashing that you can follow to help
| guarantee that your prefix is unlikely to be shared with
| anyone else, but you don't actually need to use it.
| Configure your router to advertise that prefix in addition
| to any prefix assigned by your ISP and all of your
| computers will give themselves an address in both prefixes.
| If you set your servers to base their address on their mac
| address, then every one of your servers will have a single
| unique address. Your client machines can keep their
| privacy-aware addresses that change frequently.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_local_address
|
| For my network I wanted something I had some chance of
| remembering so I consulted a dictionary and ended up with
| fdbe:aded:cafe:babe::/64.
| toast0 wrote:
| > The main drawback seems to be that some networks still
| refuse to peer with them so not everything is reachable.
|
| A bigger drawback is that you end up in a bad neighborhood.
| 20 years ago, most traffic from tunnelbroker users were
| people excited about ipv6 with isps that didn't care about
| it. In 2026, nobody is excited about ipv6 anymore and
| tunnelbroker traffic is mostly abuse or trying to
| circumvent georestrictions... Expect to fill out so many
| captchas if you set it up.
| esseph wrote:
| Tons.
|
| A lot of US ISPs have no ipv6 configured.
|
| (There are roughly 3,000 different ISPs in the US.)
| luckman212 wrote:
| I don't have statistics on that, but I can say that Verizon
| FIOS NG-PON2 service in the US (which is what I have) does
| not offer native V6, so yes, sadly I am forced to use a
| tunnel broker in 2026.
| happyPersonR wrote:
| Tbh ipv4 and cgnat im hoping at this point will go the way of
| POTS and be something we force turn off. There are differences
| between how ipv6 works and v4 ....
|
| But I'm not sure the cost of running these shims for forever is
| worth what they're holding back.
|
| The only question remaining in my mind is if the world is ready
| for ipv6 ... but maybe it's better if we at least set a date.
| UltraSane wrote:
| In the US most small to medium sized companies ignore ipv6
| completely. Every company I have worked for didn't use it and
| had it blocked at the firewall.
| m3047 wrote:
| Updated Date: 2026-03-11T07:13:31Z Creation Date:
| 2001-03-09T23:23:30Z Registry Expiry Date:
| 2027-03-09T23:23:30Z
|
| There is also this:
|
| https://www.infoblox.com/blog/threat-intelligence/abusing-ar...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-11 23:01 UTC)