8 ms·
I found that http://www.bbc.com.sixxs.org http://www.bbc.com.sixxs.org was far faster than using Coral cache, but that assumes that you have access to IPv6. Yo
by rb12345 13y ago
I found that http://www.bbc.com.sixxs.org http://www.bbc.com.sixxs.org was far faster than using Coral cache, but that assumes that you have access to IPv6. You can't chain the IPv4 proxy to it by the look of things (http://www.bbc.com.sixxs.org.ipv4.sixxs.org/ http://www.bbc.com.sixxs.org.ipv4.sixxs.org/).
- croisillon 13y agoOK, so NYUD and SIXXS are "tunnels" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunneling_protocol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunneling_protocol which seems to work similarly as a proxy...
- rb12345 13y agoBoth are proxies of a sort. They're effectively websites with a wildcard DNS entry and the subdomain is then used to determine the remote site. In nyud.net's case, this is located in their CDN before the real site is contacted. In the case of sixxs.org, the site is contacted directly. The difference is in the DNS entries. .ipv4.sixxs.org returns an IPv4 address and .sixxs.org returns an IPv6 address. Once connected, if the Host: header ends in ipv4.sixxs.org, the proxy connects to the remote site over IPv6; if not, the proxy connects over IPv4. The end result is that you get a proxy that lets you access the IPv6 web without IPv6 (and the IPv4 web without IPv4).
- croisillon 13y agoCool, thanks for the explanations!