| Author |
IPv6 experience? Anyone?
|
|
| strikeattack 2001-12-07, 3:37 pm |
| I was curious as to whether or not anyone has installed an experimental IPv6 protocol stack anywhere... Apparently Microsoft has one available for download from their research department.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads...form/tpipv6.asp | |
| darthfeces 2001-12-08, 9:38 am |
| no,
it seems that won't be something we'll touch
until were forced to. | |
| haseeb_eng 2001-12-08, 2:43 pm |
| not yet | |
| Yeti-GBR1 2001-12-08, 4:07 pm |
| These may help you get a feel for IPv6:
From Cisco : IPv6
Since I have the enterprise version installed on all of my routers & switchs I'll be playing with it in the not to distant future, so I'll let you know. | |
| strikeattack 2001-12-10, 9:32 am |
| Thanks for the replies guys. Yeti, if you do indeed install and configure it, don't forget to start a thread regarding your experience. | |
| sidodgers 2001-12-10, 4:50 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by strikeattack
Thanks for the replies guys. Yeti, if you do indeed install and configure it, don't forget to start a thread regarding your experience.
I've been playing with the KAME IPv6 stack on a few FreeBSD machines I keep lying around at home (yes, I have no life. no, i don't care  ).
The actual set up of the network itself and getting the basic tools (ping6, traceroute6, etc.) to work was flawless, as was getting services to run from inetd (which also supports v6.)
The problem was twofold:
1. there are very few applications which actually support ipv6. This probably won't change until v6 is deployed far and wide (interesting catch-22, methinks.)
2. getting routing protocols to run over v6 is also a headache. I won't go into detail of my experiences here because it was just too horrible.
Has anybody else played with this stuff?
Sid | |
| strikeattack 2001-12-10, 10:54 pm |
| quote:
2. getting routing protocols to run over v6 is also a headache. I won't go into detail of my experiences here because it was just too horrible.
How did you even find a routing protocol to support the IPv6 stack? Did you find some retro-fitted code and protocol? Interesting attempt though... I would have thought it MUCH EASIER to simply implement static routes and be done with it. | |
| sidodgers 2001-12-10, 11:08 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by strikeattack
How did you even find a routing protocol to support the IPv6 stack? Did you find some retro-fitted code and protocol? Interesting attempt though... I would have thought it MUCH EASIER to simply implement static routes and be done with it.
That I am aware of, there are three open-standards routing protocols which support v6; RIPng, OSPF6 (aka OSPF version 3), and bgp with multiprotocol extensions (which is also used to support the VPNV4 address family used by MPLS VPNs.) I tried to get zebra's implementation of OSPF6 running (at the ISP i work for we run regular OSPF on zebra on about 30 routers and it's very stable,) and it got to the point where I was on the verge of tears (almost...) I think I need to re-read some of Doyle volume 2; not sure if I really 'get it.'
Sid | |
| strikeattack 2001-12-10, 11:37 pm |
| quote:
RIPng, OSPF6 (aka OSPF version 3), and bgp with multiprotocol extensions
I believe there is an IS-IS version available also...
quote:
I think I need to re-read some of Doyle volume 2; not sure if I really 'get it.'
Agreed. I can't wait for the fun part when ISPs start to run mixed-mode IPv4 and IPv6. THAT will be interesting. I think we take for granted that IPv4 is basically the only routed protocol used on the Internet today. You think our jobs are difficult now? Heh.
Check out this link I found, might be useful to you.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2460.html | |
| sidodgers 2001-12-10, 11:46 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by strikeattack
I believe there is an IS-IS version available also...
Agreed. I can't wait for the fun part when ISPs start to run mixed-mode IPv4 and IPv6. THAT will be interesting. I think we take for granted that IPv4 is basically the only routed protocol used on the Internet today. You think our jobs are difficult now? Heh.
Check out this link I found, might be useful to you.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2460.html
To an extent, this has already happened...
6bone (www.6bone.org) is giving ipv6 connectivity over sit (ipv6-in-ipv4) tunnels to anybody who wants it. APNIC (the Asia Pacific regional network number people) are handing out /35 and smaller allocations already (a /35 is a VERY VERY BIG piece of network, consisting of 2^29 contiguous networks which can contain up to 2^64 hosts a piece.) I can honestly not wait until there's a real demand for V6 and I can give my fridge and coffee pot IP addresses. heh.
Sid | |
| dmaftei 2001-12-11, 12:08 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by strikeattack
I can't wait for the fun part when ISPs start to run mixed-mode IPv4 and IPv6. THAT will be interesting.
From what I see, I'm afraid you guys will have to wait for a while... The days when IPv6 was HOT-HOT-HOT are gone. With private addresses and NAT (problems other than the address space being less stringent), IPv4 has a long way to go. | |
| sidodgers 2001-12-11, 12:13 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by dmaftei
From what I see, I'm afraid you guys will have to wait for a while... The days when IPv6 was HOT-HOT-HOT are gone. With private addresses and NAT (problems other than the address space being less stringent), IPv4 has a long way to go.
This is quite sad. NAT is not a solution in itself because it avoids the issue entirely and breaks the traditional 'end-to-end' connectivity paradigm which the internet was built on. Sure, you can run a few thousand hosts behind one public IP address, but they can't accept connections back into the network unless you play weird scary tricks with port translation.
I think you're right, though, since every man and their dog can get their networks on line with a cheap-n-cheerful unix box or NAT router, there will be less of a commercial driver for a real solution.
This is depressing.
Sid | |
| darthfeces 2001-12-11, 12:07 pm |
| i thought about this and the only place i can
see it happening for a while is in the core or
wan (most likely forced by your isp) who will benefit most from ipv6's address space.
as long as we have nat i see no reason to displace
ipv4 from dist or access layers |
|
|
|