When IPv6?
in [Linux Networking]
|
Prev: How to force card speed ?
Next: NFS root problem
From: Moe Trin on 20 Apr 2008 16:37 On Sun, 20 Apr 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in article <drgqd5-urc.ln1(a)dougshost.douglaidlaw.net>, Doug Laidlaw wrote: >Moe Trin wrote: >> A lot of people have no direct IPv6 access, and the most common >> problem is an ISP run name server[s] that ignores a 'AAAA' record >> request, rather than immediately returning a NOTIMP or REFUSED >> result. The result is a 5 to 15 second delay before your resolver >> decides things aren't working and then tries a 'A' record request. >I have ipv6 disabled at the moment. My real question was: when will >I need to turn it on again? A "host" lookup yesterday gave addresses >in both formats. Two questions - first, are you finding you need to access any host or service that ONLY runs on IPv6? (At least for me, I've not seen any indication of a specific IPv6 only situation. "YMMV") And second, if you enable IPv6, does your ISP provide you with a "real" IPv6 address (in the range 2000:: through 4000:: minus 1, as opposed to Link Local addresses in the E800::/64, E900::/64, FE80::/64 or FEC0::/64 ranges). As mentioned up-thread, OZ has 44 IPv6 ranges (2 assigned to end-users, 42 allocated to providers for sub-assignment). Is your ISP one of the lucky few? The normal reason to disable IPv6 is b0rken DNS servers. If that is no longer a problem for you - and you have made (or can make) any needed IPv6 firewall rules - go for it. You _MAY_ find that IPv6 still causes some delays (a fraction of a second to make an IPv6 query and either find NXDOMAIN, or get NOERROR but not be able to route packets "there"), but you can probably only discover this by testing. There may also be minor slowness because the IPv6 world isn't as well connected as IPv4 - I've done a traceroute6 from a site in New York City, to a site in Montreal, and the packets were routed via Japan because there was no direct route otherwise. Old guy
From: Jurgen Haan on 21 Apr 2008 07:19 Doug Laidlaw wrote: > There is much fuss about IPv6. Predictions seem to be to bring it in about > 2 years hence. But a search at my ISP's site returned not one match. > > What are the latest guesses? Will Australia with its smaller population > have IPv4 longer? (We are just closing down DCMA cellphone networks.) > Don't know about the rest of the world, but here, in the Netherlands, a lot of ISPs already have their whole infrastructure running on IPV6. It's just not noticable for customers, since they are being provisioned over IPV4. (compatbility stuff, etc).
From: Moe Trin on 21 Apr 2008 16:00 On 21 Apr 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in article <slrng0p1qn.l6a.rogblake10(a)moog.netaxs.com>, Roger Blake wrote: >Moe Trin wrote: >> I wouldn't go so far as to say "never", but certainly the mad rush >> to the future isn't effecting us yet. Several years from now, perhaps. >Hopefully the "need" to actually use IPV6 will come after I retire >from the DP business, after which I will not need or want internet >access and it beomes a moot point. Reminds me of a network tech who stated that when he retired, he was going to walk away from town carrying a 50 foot AUI cable coiled up on his arm, and when he found someone who asked him "where are you going with that gray rope" he had found the place where he was going to life thereafter. >(The rest of you can deal with it as you see fit. :) I suspect that will be harder and harder to escape. I was in for surgery earlier this year, and while recovering enough to be able to go home, spoke with a tech who came in to fix a problem with the medical monitor system they had me wired up to (BP, EKG, Blood oxygen levels, $DEITY knows what else). The monitor in the room was connected to the nurses stations over IP. Old guy
From: Keith Keller on 21 Apr 2008 17:23 On 2008-04-21, Moe Trin <ibuprofin(a)painkiller.example.tld> wrote: [re: avoiding ipv6] > I suspect that will be harder and harder to escape. I was in for > surgery earlier this year, and while recovering enough to be able to > go home, spoke with a tech who came in to fix a problem with the > medical monitor system they had me wired up to (BP, EKG, Blood > oxygen levels, $DEITY knows what else). The monitor in the room was > connected to the nurses stations over IP. It could be on an RFC1918 network, in which case all those nodes aren't using up the IPv4 address space. I think it will be more common to see internal hosts using that network space rather than ''real'' IPs, though I can't imagine it'd be enough to make IPv6 unneeded long-term. --keith -- kkeller-usenet(a)wombat.san-francisco.ca.us (try just my userid to email me) AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt see X- headers for PGP signature information
From: Rick Jones on 21 Apr 2008 18:23
Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet(a)wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote: > On 2008-04-21, Moe Trin <ibuprofin(a)painkiller.example.tld> wrote: > [re: avoiding ipv6] > > I suspect that will be harder and harder to escape. I was in for > > surgery earlier this year, and while recovering enough to be able > > to go home, spoke with a tech who came in to fix a problem with > > the medical monitor system they had me wired up to (BP, EKG, Blood > > oxygen levels, $DEITY knows what else). The monitor in the room > > was connected to the nurses stations over IP. > It could be on an RFC1918 network, in which case all those nodes > aren't using up the IPv4 address space. I think it will be more > common to see internal hosts using that network space rather than > ''real'' IPs, though I can't imagine it'd be enough to make IPv6 > unneeded long-term. Ah, but if it were IPv6 then there would be enough address space for Moe's Insurer to reach-out and verify that the "right" things were happening with his care... rick jones -- The computing industry isn't as much a game of "Follow The Leader" as it is one of "Ring Around the Rosy" or perhaps "Duck Duck Goose." - Rick Jones these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :) feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... |