Slashdot over IPv6 248
fuzzel writes "Even though Slashdot has run a number of articles about IPv6 (1|2|3) it apparently isn't reachable over IPv6 directly.
But for the people that do already have IPv6 they can use http://slashdot.org.sixxs.org and they will be automaticaly gatewayed. This trick works for most sites by simply appending .sixxs.org to the domain part of a url, eg http://www.google.com.sixxs.org, the gateway will the rewrite url's to have it appended automatically so that everything goes over IPv6. Full information is available on http://ipv6gate.sixxs.net. Oh and yes if you don't have IPv6, those domains under sixxs.org won't work :)"
That's weird.. (Score:2)
Re:That's weird.. (Score:2)
You learn something new every day.
Dont worry (Score:2)
Question: But are their enough /. users on Ipv6 to /. the network.
Answer: Dosentmatter buddy, even though I dont have v6, I tried clicking on it twice just to see what happens.
Tomorow is a weekend. So the network will be in a good mood.
Re:Dont worry (Score:2)
Answer: Dosentmatter buddy, even though I dont have v6, I tried clicking on it twice just to see what happens.
Dont underestimate the power of a stubborn slashdotter, if i have learned anything from time here, it's that you must click every link several times to try and sneak a lucky page load in.
I probably clicked the slashdot and google V6 links 3 or 4 times a piece thinking there was no possible way slashdot or google had been
Re:Dont worry (Score:2)
Even so, it's not Google or Slashdot being Slashdotted, it's the sixxs.org gateway that has to facilitate the transfer. As of right now, they probably didn't foresee or get ready to handle a good Slashdotting, as the intersection of people using IPv6 and people who know about the sixxs.org rerouting would be a lot slimmer, at least for the moment.
either I don't have IPv6, or.. (Score:2, Funny)
I don't know.
Oh great... (Score:5, Funny)
I'll guess I'll admit it.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I'll guess I'll admit it.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I'll guess I'll admit it.. (Score:5, Informative)
IPv6...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
See also:
IPv6: The Promise, The Problems, The Protocol [extremetech.com]
RDC 2373 [rfc-editor.org]
Re:I'll guess I'll admit it.. (Score:2)
Now, the first thing I thought of when I read that was: "What happens when someone finds out a that a major vendor can't handle it when the 16-bit length is 0 but there is no "jumbo payload" in the packet?"
Okay, perhaps not the best example, but are they looking to try to avoid (as much as possible) spots in the protocol that might in the future be exploited? 'Cause I'm sure lots of people here know better than I many ways to abuse IPv4...
Re:I'll guess I'll admit it.. (Score:2)
Another example:
An IPv6 packet can contain "chains" of headers since it has a "Next Header" field to describe the next extension header. I suppose an extension header has a similar field as well. I wonder what happens if you chain a huge packet together and send it? Would it be detected as illegal? The packet should still follow the standard. Is there an upper limit of total packet size?
Re:I'll guess I'll admit it.. (Score:2)
Re:I'll guess I'll admit it.. (Score:2)
Re:I'll guess I'll admit it.. (Score:5, Interesting)
-
Just a question on this one. I do agree that there will be enough IP addresses that there is no need to use special local addresses. Bit i actually find it very useful. It makes it easy to see where I am located, is it behind NAT, behind a firewall or just through a proxy ?. Currenty I can figure some of this out just by looking at my IP address, but without local IP subnets, things will get more confusing.
And furthermore, i'd say the "end of NAT" is a bit too much. I find it very useful to use a NAT gateway/firewall and put insecure clients behind that. It reduces the need to think secure on the local network. I can for instance export my fileserver data rw onto 192.168 without much consern. Wouldn't wanna do that if they were all "real" IP's.
IPv6 is great and it will allow those who DONT want to be behind NAT to get a "real" IP address, but its not the end of NAT.
Re:I'll guess I'll admit it.. (Score:2)
If you really want to hide the internal structure of your network, you could still do NAT to translate the internal addresses to one external gateway address. But you don't neccesarily have to use the same local subnet as everyone else.
IMHO, the benefit of being able to see if you are behind NAT by looking at your IP address is rather small. It's not the only indicator anyway. I've got a "real" IP address here at work. But, for http, anyway, I go through a transparent proxy. So, to the outside world, it looks like I'm visiting from one of several proxy servers.
The dark lining (Score:3, Insightful)
So does IPv4 -- it's just that no one actually *uses* them.
The main thing that I *really* don't like about IPv6 is that, while it isn't a mandated part of the protocol, it seems that the overwhelming direction being pushed is to make the last 48 bits of your address your MAC address. Which *really* has nasty privacy implications -- 'slike a universal cookie, visible to everyone, that anyone can see (not just http servers).
Re:I'll guess I'll admit it.. (Score:2, Informative)
For one thing I've understood that IPv6 will make routing possible without keeping track crazy amounts of addresses in huge routing tables. IPv& addresses are hierachical, and in a simplified sense work something like this:
country.state.city.area.house.etc.etc...
NOTE: this is not the actual layout... I don't remember the details. But the point is a backbone router only needs to look at the start of the address, and then send the packet "in the right direction" so to speak. The same thing applies longer down the chain.
Would someone who is more enlightened care to explain this in an official manner?
Re:I'll guess I'll admit it.. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, this is done with IPv4 now as well. Originally, IPv4 was split into Class A,B, and C networks. Class A networks were larger blocks of addresses than Class B and C. Class A networks were allocated pretty quickly. So all there are left are Class C network blocks.
If an organization gets a Class C network block, they have to use stuff like NAT and subnetting to uniquley identify each machine in there network and make routing manageable.
These Class C network blocks are dished out geographically now. But the Class A network blocks that were dished out earlier are not being utilized well, because organizations don't have enough machines to fill them out.
That's a pretty shitty explanation. Partly because I forget the number of bits in an IPv4 address that identifies the network and the number that identifies a host. So I can't come up with a good example. But my IPv4 address looks like so: 142.179.xxx.xxx (I'm not gonna give you my exact address)
And my subnet mask: 255.255.248.0
So my (Class C) network is (probably) identified by the first 21 bits. (If my conversion is correct).
Re:I'll guess I'll admit it.. (Score:2)
Check out this link:
http://www.telusplanet.net/public/sparkman
They have a bunch of network calculators which will make it alot clearer than I can.
Stop the madness! (Score:5, Informative)
For starters, classful routing on the Internet has gone the way of the Dinosaurs, and good riddance. CIDR saw to that (Classless Inter-Domain Routing), and when BGPv4 became the standard, all was right in the world (Because it implemented CIDR, by carrying Netmask along with the route entries).
In casual conversation today, we still use terms like Class B, or Class C address space, but they don't refer to the actual Classful network boundaries of yore. Today, when someone refers to a Class C address space, they simply mean a 24-bit address space. Likewise, a Class B means a 16-bit (/16) address space.
You say your netmask is 255.255.248.0. This represents a larger address space than a Class C, which has a mask of 255.255.255.0 (or /24).
Your address space is the aggregate of 8 Class C networks. Your network is configured to utilize the first and second octets, and the first 5 bits of the third octet as the network address, leaving the remaining 3 bits of the third octet, and the entire fourth octet as the host address.
That represents a network segment consisting of up to 2048 hosts (Ok... 2046 since you toss the first and last as the network address and the broadcast address.).
In short, your network engineering staff ought to be shot, because damn, that's a really big subnet. There's just no good reason to have that many hosts on a segment.
It's possible that you guys don't have anywhere near that many hosts, but if you do, without even looking, I can tell you that your network is a bit of a show. I hope you have your highly-loaded servers on their own segment, because the number of broadcasts must be tremendous. Even in a switched environment, those broadcasts must be propegated everywhere, and every machine in the network has to stop briefly to examine each and every one.
Your organization should look at some Layer-3 segmentation...
Re:I'll guess I'll admit it.. (Score:5, Informative)
The only solution available to provide Internet access to the hosts on the LAN was to use a private non routable subnet and to masquerade it behind the edge router. NAT also allowed some of these hosts to expose services to the outside world. But this solution has a major drawback : it breaks end to end connectivity and thus complicates the offering of many services that the Internet was meant for. Used like that, NAT is an evil kludge.
IPv6 provides a way out. There certainly are many other advantages in the use of IPv6, but end to end connectivity for the masses is what could have the deepest impact. Think about is : when every single workstation has a routable IPv6 address, everyone will have the potential to serve. This is is what the Internet was meant to be, and actually was in the early days.
NAT - eliminated? (Score:2)
If you wanted to eliminate NAT, the ISP would have to provide an IPv6 address for every network interface in your house, and I'm going to assume they would tack on some sort of surcharge for each additional address. So I doubt NAT would go away, b/c if the majority of the home users can buy a single Internet connection and split it between multiple machines, what would be their incentive to fork out the cash for multiple addresses?
Also, what about the logicistics of bringing multiple static IPv6 addresses into a house? How would that work...a router in each home? I've never had that one explained to me.
Re:NAT - eliminated? (Score:2)
Why would they have to? They could hand everybody on their network 16 (or 24) bits of subnet and still have untold billions of addresses left over.
You need to get your head around that with IPv6 there will never again be a shortage of IP addresses (with the assumption that mere stupidity rather than insanity prevails in handing them out). 128 bits is rather a lot :)
Re:Stupid question... (Score:2, Informative)
Slashdotting... (Score:3, Informative)
IPv6 Slashdotting? (Score:4, Funny)
If not, then shame on us.
the ironies (Score:5, Funny)
so maybe we will finally be able to slashdot slashdot, or at least the IPv6 gateway,
BUT maybe there are not enough slashdotters using IPv6 to be able to connect to the IPv6 slashdot in order to slashdot slashdot's IPv6 gateway,
and... [head explodes]
the rewrite url's what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I get the general idea, but it took me some time. Funny how a couple of spelling mistakes can lead to a quite obfuscated sentence. Anyway, here is what I now think (after checking the site: boggled at that sentence in vain!
Re:the rewrite url's what? (Score:2)
I read it right the first time. I couldn't understand your complaint until I read it out loud.
the gateway will rewrite the url's to have it [.sixxs.org] appended automatically so that everything goes over IPv6.
No problem. Obviously you don't work with enough Engrish speakers.
Damn. (Score:2)
Re:Damn. (Score:5, Informative)
Use a tunnel broker. It lets you tunnel ipv6 connections over ipv4 to another endpoint. Two of the most popular are Freenet6 [freenet6.net] and Hurricane Electric [he.net]. Hurricane Electric requires a static ipv4 IP, but Freenet6 works with dynamic IPs.
Re:Damn. (Score:2)
Having a proper, working multicast system well supported by the backbone routers would rewrite the rules of the net. Radio stations wouldn't be limited by needing constant donations of bandwidth, large file downloads could be put on a carousel saving more bandwidth, even websites if you were clever enough.
Using tunnelling doesn't give ISPs any incentive to move to IPv6 natively though, so we don't get the benefits of that.
Re:Damn. (Score:2)
Disclaimer: i help run ipng.org.uk, a UK tunnel broker
Re:Damn. (Score:2)
Re:Damn. (Score:2)
Re:Damn. (Score:2)
My ISPs that support IPv6, like mine (Visi [visi.com]) have tunnel endpoints right there. This is a much better solution than using some tunnel broker way off on some far flung corner of the network. It gets your tunnelled IPv4 packets turned back into IPv6 as close to you as possible.
Tunneling this way essentially works by sending IPv4 packets between tunnel endpoints who's content type field says they contain IPv6 packets.
6to4 to the rescue (Score:2)
IPv6 - Chicken and egg ? - no! (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just like HDTV, yes, it's better, cooler, has nifty features, but the old thing does most of the job for much less money/effort.
With IP this situation 'might' (not necessarily 'will') change with the vanishing IP address space, but I am convinved it's perfectly safe to wait till we get there.
If any ISP really thinks he needs v6 he will just install it. Why should I (as a user) try to convince any ISP to use v6. It's just nothing that matters to me. (Multicast?? ha!) I can tell you, that I (as an ISP) don't even know why I should convince anybody. This whole discussion is probably sponsored by cisco's PR department.
Cheers.
Re:IPv6 - Chicken and egg ? - no! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:IPv6 - Chicken and egg ? - no! (Score:2)
Re:IPv6 - Chicken and egg ? - no! (Score:2)
Everything supports HTTP/1.1 now days, or sends a Host header with HTTP/1.0. The SSL issue can be solved rather easily by either using wildcard certificates, or running each SSL site on it's own port.
Re:IPv6 - Chicken and egg ? - no! (Score:2)
Re:IPv6 - Chicken and egg ? - no! (Score:2)
I say: If you can live with a lousy network, you don't need v6. (You can live with lousY NTSC, you don't need HDTV).
If you think, you could be more costeffective with v6, because you can maybe fire sysadmins, because you don't need NAT anymore, why don't you just do it? There are ISPs providing v6, change ISP, what prevents you?
Cheers.
Re:IPv6 - Chicken and egg ? - no! (Score:2, Insightful)
However, if you need to host 500 servers and can't figure out how to set up a NAT gateway to support them, maybe you need to hire some competent help.
If you can't figure out how to negotiate a contract with your Internet provider to get the bandwidth that you need, maybe you need to hire some competent help.
If you can't figure out that when you are talking about 500 computers to hide behind a NAT you should be talking to an ISP/bandwidth provider who knows how to sell commercial class services, maybe you need to hire some competent help.
If you are the help, then God help the organization that you work for. In the meantime, I strongly suggest spending a lot of time polishing your skillset, because your next boss won't be as willing to put up with this kind of mess.
Re:IPv6 - Chicken and egg ? - no! (Score:5, Insightful)
Good point. Also, I see no reason why we should bother researching renewable forms of energy until we actually run out of oil. After all, the perfect time to solve a problem is when our infrastructure depends on the solution - solving a problem before it's a catastrophe is just wasted effort.
Re:IPv6 - Chicken and egg ? - no! (Score:2)
Now, fossile/renewable energies is a completely different issue. Bringing it up in this context is plainly stupid.
Cheers
Damn Irresponsible (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Damn Irresponsible (Score:2)
Was a V4 ever made? Every 4-cylinder engine I've seen is an inline-4 (to reduce function-call overhead, apparently ;o))
Tunnel Brokers (Score:5, Informative)
These work by creating a ipv6 GIF tunnel over ipv4, to a server which has either further tunnels to the 6bone or native connectivity. Once you have this setup (and its preety easy to do on Linux, Windows, and very easy to do on the BSDs) then any ipv6 traffic can be routed automatically. This way you dopnt need to use a gateway, and you can use pretty much any app over ipv6, including ftp, ssh, www, email etc.
Disclaimer: I help run ipng.org.uk, which is a UK tunnel broker, who gives you a
Re:Tunnel Brokers (Score:2)
Re:Tunnel Brokers (Score:2)
Re:Tunnel Brokers (Score:4, Interesting)
For a complete matrix of ipv6 ranges right down to a
Re: Tunnel Brokers (Score:5, Funny)
That is just so stupid and typical. Why oh why do we have to put up with this recyling of old and broken technologies, and patent issues to boot? You would have thought that if they are making a fresh start with a new so-called modern protocol, they would at least use a new and modern specification such as, let's say, PNG? Duh!!!!
Re: Tunnel Brokers (Score:2)
Right, so this is exactly what they are doing, at least in the Netherlands: IPng (IP Next Generation) [www.ipng.nl]
Happy now?
US Alternative Tunnel Broker (Score:5, Informative)
>who gives you a
Great! And for those of us in the States (especially California), Hurricane Electric offers a free tunnel broker [tunnelbroker.net] with these characteristics that I would recommend [slashdot.org].I have been using it for more than 6 months, and find it quite stable. You do lose your /64 if HE can't ping you for 24 hours, but a new one is only a mouse click away. And what kind of geek would leave their computer inaccessible for that long anyway? ;). Initial activation does take a day or so.
-Fyodor
Concerned about your network security? Try the free Nmap Security Scanner [insecure.org]
beware HE (Score:2)
Re:Tunnel Brokers (Score:2)
Great. Every goddamn atom in your computer has its own bloody IP address. Tell me again why this is important?
Re:Tunnel Brokers (Score:5, Funny)
You're going to need a way to address them aren't you?
Re:Tunnel Brokers (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Tunnel Brokers (Score:2)
Re:Tunnel Brokers (Score:3, Informative)
thats 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 distinct ips
Great. Every goddamn atom in your computer has its own bloody IP address. Tell me again why this is important?
It means that every subnetwork in your site can have the same size network. By convention, end customers ("subscribers" is the ipv6 term) are assigned a
To put it in more familiar IPv4 terms, imagine if there were so many IP addresses available that even the smallest sites could be given a class B. Now instead of having to subnet your network into efficiently sized CIDR blocks (eg, the lab upstairs gets 10.123.5.224/28, the billing dept gets 10.123.5.128/27, tech supports dept gets 10.123.5.32/29), you can just say everyone gets a class C (eg, the lab upstairs gets 10.123.5.x, the billing dept gets 10.123.6.x, tech supports dept gets 10.123.7.x). Much easier for humans to work with that way.
To put in in IPv6 terms again, every site gets assigned a
There's also the autoconfiguration thing (host addresses can be assigned based on their NIC hardware addresses, since the IPv6 subnet space is bigger than ethernet address space)...
Re:it's important because (Score:2)
Re: Tunnel Brokers (Score:3, Informative)
Why the Weird Gateway? (Score:5, Interesting)
My limited understanding of IPv6 is that you can deploy v6 addresses locally, and advertise them globally via DNS using AAAA records. You can then talk over the larger Internet using a 6-over-4 tunnel.
Assuming this is correct, why doesn't Slashdot simply advertise an AAAA record, then accept connections through a 6-over-4 tunnel (or natively, if their bandwidth provider can speak it)? What are the technical considerations preventing this from working?
Schwab
Re:Why the Weird Gateway? (Score:2)
Re:Why the Weird Gateway? (Score:2)
ipv6 install
What were you saying?
Re:Why the Weird Gateway? (Score:2, Informative)
I think it is still considered "beta" so-to-speak.
'Have' IPv6??? (Score:4, Insightful)
What exactly does it take to 'have' IPv6? What stuff neds to be upgraded? Application software? OS? Router? Does your ISP need to 'have' or 'support' it? It also seems a hell of a lot more complex to type in an IPv6 address than an IPv4 one, but I guess that only matters if you're not using a domain. Then again, with so many IP addresses available with IPv6 this may be the case, as there won't be nearly enough domains to hold everyone's IP!
I'm sorry that this will sound ignorant, but if I'm asking the question and I'm not exactly dumb, it's no wonder all the AOLers aren't using IPv6! I don't even know how you use it, and there are barely any servers using it either, no?
Re:'Have' IPv6??? (Score:5, Informative)
OS and applications. Many operating systems already do support IPv6, as do many applications (Mozilla does, at least, as does many IRC clients because there's distinct benefits.)
Router/ISP level support is Nice To Have, but there are tunneling servers [freenet6.net] that enable IPv4 sites to talk IPv6.
As far as setup woes go, my setup was as easy as 'apt-get install freenet6' =)
Re:'Have' IPv6??? (Score:2, Informative)
You could also tunnel IPv6 over IPv4, so two ends could communicate using IPv6 in a v4 network.
Or, you could use a gateway, like sixxs.org. There is some info in the link [sixxs.net] supplied in the article, but if you want the big stuff, please RTFRFC [rfc-editor.org] 2460!
HTH!
Ipv6 is great (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ipv6 is great (Score:2)
I guess I still don't see why I should upgrade. As I see it, my setup works just fine now using NAT, and if I upgraded I'd get loads of grief, not least having to make sure all my IP apps support IPv6 - I bet most don't.
Can anyone convince me why I need it?
Even I can have a site on ipv6 (Score:2, Troll)
Slashdot's IPv6 Address (Score:2)
h t t p colon slash slash slash dot dot slash dot dot slash dot dot org
IPv6 is like the Chicken and Egg story (Score:3, Interesting)
*) IPv6 is ready to deploy, however not much ISP's are supporting IPv6.
*) ISP's are not supporting IPv6 because there are no customers who uses it.
*) Customers aren't using IPv6 because there are no applications who uses it.
*) Software developers aren't creating software because nobody uses it.
As you can see there's a loop. The main thing is to break this loop and this project is a step in the good direction.
I'd like to encourage all ISP's to actively implement and promote IPv6. And you as 'consumer' can also promote IPv6, play with it even when you ISP doesn't support IPv6 yet (with IPv6 Tunnels for example).
Just my 2 cents.
No chicken and egg (Score:2)
You see, if you use the new calls, your app will work just as fine with ipv4, and it will automagically also support ipv6. Heck, the host OS doesn't even need to support ip6, as long as it supports the newer ANSI standard calls. At least, when you recompile the app on a ipv6-capable box it will support ipv6 automatically.
Developers need to stop using the old stuffy gethostbyaddr()/gethostbyname() calls and (struct hostent *) structures and switch to (struct addrinfo *) for their resolving and socket binding needs as soon as possible.
So no, no chicken and egg. ipv6 is being sneakily seeded into the apps. When the OS switches over, presto, it works. Yay.
What are you talking about? (Score:2)
We're talking about a software code upgrade on existing routers...
ISPs are utilizing either Cisco or Juniper in their cores (If they're using something else *chuckle*, it's time to change ISPs).
You can get IPv6 support from each company.
Why do people assume that this is going to require a capital investment?
It's no wonder you didn't sign your post.
IP6 is too complex for general acceptance. (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not that complex. (Score:2)
default:\
# interfaces.
ex0:\
tlp0:\
Behind that sits a variety of MacOS X, NetBSD, FreeBSD, Solaris, etc... systems. All of which are working fine.
Impressive! (Score:2)
Tis very cool! Everyone give it a go! If all those who read Slashdot got onto the IPv6 network then that would be a huge boost! And we need IPv6 to be successful!
Oh, and Slashdot should consider setting up ipv6.slashdot.org - it's not that difficult!
MacOS X and IPv6 and other OSs (Score:5, Informative)
en0: flags=8863<UP,BROADCAST,SMART,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MUL
inet6 fe80::230:65ff:fed6:b164%en0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x4
inet 192.168.1.100 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255
ether 00:30:64:d6:b2:64
media: autoselect (100baseTX <full-duplex>) status: active
From what I can tell MS-Windows is still a little behind, as can be seen from this page [microsoft.com]. As for other OSs I am not aware of their support status. If you do know, a reply to this post would be handy to most.
IPv6 implementations for various OSs (Score:2)
Re:IPv6 implementations for various OSs (Score:2)
Why does anyone (not you I know) bother to maintain a list like that if they aren't going to keep it up to date? Old information (that is not dated as old information) is less than worthless.
Re:MacOS X and IPv6 and other OSs (Score:2)
Actually, it looks like Windows XP comes with some sort of IPv6 Support: A quote from Microsoft Research [microsoft.com]
Windows XP - In October 2001, the latest desktop edition of Windows was released, bringing the reliability and performance of the Windows NT kernel to a much wider audience. Every copy of Windows XP, Home Edition and Professional, has an IPv6 stack based on the research that we started, released as a Developer Preview primarily for application porting. The stack is very easily manually installed from a command line just by typing "ipv6 install".
Re:MacOS X and IPv6 and other OSs (Score:3, Interesting)
There is an experimental IPv6 stack for Windows 2000 Service Pack 1 (which will not install on 2 or 3), but there will never ever ever in a million billion years be a production-quality stack for Windows 2000, because of issues with people not spending $200 on XP.
XP comes with a development IPv6 stack included on the CD, and Service Pack 1 comes with a production-quality IPv6 stack. Windows 2003 will include a production-quality stack as well, as will CE XP and
As much as I disapprove of MS for not bothering to support IPv6 in 2k, and despite knowing why they did it, I still encourage people to upgrade if the choice arises, if for no other reason than you won't have to upgrade again later to support IPv6.
Oh, and write your ISPs.
--Dan
Re:MacOS X and IPv6 and other OSs (Score:2)
MacOS X is "based" on a modified Mach kernel; it also has added support for BSD compatability and conventions, uses some BSD & modified-from BSD tools
That's vastly different from "based ontop of BSD".
Modified URL format (Score:3, Interesting)
What the heck? (Score:2)
"Where do I get my own 6bone handle?"
I looked whatis.com and got a semi-English explanation.
So now I understand that IPv6 lengthens IPs from 32 to 128 bits and packets can be prioritized. Is that the heart of the matter?
Anybody have a good FAQ?
Do I need a 6bone handle?
Is that some kind of raunchy joke?
Gateways/caches should _NOT_ change the user agent (Score:5, Insightful)
SixXS-IPv6Gate/1.0 (IPv6 Gateway; http://ipv6gate.sixxs.net; info@sixxs.net)
Bad! Many sites go through painstaking effort to be compable with all sorts of user agents, giving plain HTML when one is not recognized. By re-writing the user agent these people prevent this magic. Not good. Instead it should add it's own key/value pair, much like SQUID or other cache/gateway.
Re:IPv6 today? (Score:4, Interesting)
Disclaimer: i help run ipng.org.uk, a UK tunnel broker.
Re:IPv6 today? (Score:2)
Re:IPv6 today? (Score:4, Informative)
An IPv6 address is 128 bits long. Of these 128 bits, 64 bits are reserved for the host part. Usually it's a somewhat mangled version of your ethernet MAC address (a router will broadcast a prefix, and client machines will simply append the mangled version of their MAC to the prefix -- this is called autoconfiguration).
This means you need a /64 subnet on each segment.
Usually providers will assign you a /48 addressspace, giving you roughly enough space for 65000 subnets.
Of course these addresses are routable: you don't need NAT and your machines are reachable from the internet.
Re:IPv6 today? (Score:2)
Re:IPv6 today? (Score:2, Informative)
2. What if you want to run a service on the same port on multiple machines. With NAT you can only forward a port to a single machine. With fully routable, there are no problems.
3. What if you NAT an office and some idiot is poking around other peoples networks. With NAT, all you know is that the connection came from your office. With fully routable IPs you may be able to tell whos machine was the culprit.
These are just three. There are many more...
Re:IPv6 today? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:640k is more than enough for anybody (Score:2)
Re:640k is more than enough for anybody (Score:2)
Re:---BOYCOTT IPv6--- (Score:2)
Re:IPv6 Quick links.. (Score:4, Informative)