FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 12-05-2010, 10:50 AM
Rudi Ahlers
 
Default IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

Seeing as IPV4 is near it's end of life
(http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3915471/IPv4+Nearing+Final+Days.htm),
I'm curios as who know whether everyone is ready for the changeover to
IPV6?

Is anyone using it in production already, and what are your experiences with it?

--
Kind Regards
Rudi Ahlers
SoftDux

Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
Office: 087 805 9573
Cell: 082 554 7532
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-05-2010, 12:08 PM
Michel van Deventer
 
Default IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

Hi,

On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 13:50 +0200, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> Seeing as IPV4 is near it's end of life
> (http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3915471/IPv4+Nearing+Final+Days.htm),
> I'm curios as who know whether everyone is ready for the changeover to
> IPV6?
>
> Is anyone using it in production already, and what are your experiences with it?
>
I have a dualstack (IPV4/IPV6) ADSL connection at home and all my
machines are IPV6 connected, some in combination with IPV4, but I have a
few IPV6 only machines. My mail and some websites are adressable with
IPV6.

Is this really production ? Well, sort of

Regards,

Michel



_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-05-2010, 12:13 PM
RedShift
 
Default IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

On 12/05/10 12:50, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> Seeing as IPV4 is near it's end of life
> (http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3915471/IPv4+Nearing+Final+Days.htm),
> I'm curios as who know whether everyone is ready for the changeover to
> IPV6?
>
> Is anyone using it in production already, and what are your experiences with it?
>

Haven't switched yet, I have IPv6 at home using sixxs.

IMO the slow adoption is caused by the complexity IPv6 brings. They should have just modified IP to use 128 bits addresses and leave the rest as is. For example, what is the use of a link scoped IPv6 address? Why would you want to assign an IP address to yourself that's of no use at all? I can't even figure out what address ranges are reserved for private use, is there even such a concept in IPv6? I know that IPv6 is supposed to allow every address to be publicly route-able but having your computers in private ranges and use NAT has big advantages towards security. And what about this arbitrarily chosen /64 subnet? So we're returning back to classfull routing? A provider won't be able to purchase a subnet greater than /64 from for example RIPE? Stateless auto-configuration is a useless feature, just like APIPA. I much prefer DHCP and thankfully it still exists for v6.

Glenn
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-05-2010, 12:21 PM
Tom H
 
Default IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:13 AM, RedShift <redshift@pandora.be> wrote:
> On 12/05/10 12:50, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
>>
>> (http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3915471/IPv4+Nearing+Final+Days.htm),
>
> Haven't switched yet, I have IPv6 at home using sixxs.
>
> I can't even figure out what address ranges are reserved for private use, is there even such a concept in IPv6?

I think that site-local ("fec0:: - fef::") is the ipv6
more-or-less-equivalent of ipv4 private addresses.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-05-2010, 12:29 PM
Brian Miller
 
Default IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 14:13 +0100, RedShift wrote:

>
> And what about this arbitrarily chosen /64 subnet? So we're returning back to classfull routing? A provider won't be able to purchase a subnet greater than /64 from for example RIPE?
>

Within a reasonable planning horizon, what provider would need
~1.84*10^19 (or for those who don't grok exponential notation
184,00,000,000,000,000,000) addresses?

brian


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-05-2010, 12:41 PM
Stephen Harris
 
Default IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 08:21:49AM -0500, Tom H wrote:
> I think that site-local ("fec0:: - fef::") is the ipv6
> more-or-less-equivalent of ipv4 private addresses.

fec0::/48 is site local; it'll never be routed to the internet.

I found http://www.litech.org/~jeff/private/ipv6primer/html/ very useful as
a learning resource. I probably need to reread it again :-)

--

rgds
Stephen
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-05-2010, 12:51 PM
Rob Del Vecchio
 
Default IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

FWIW, I have a netbook (Windows 7) which does something interesting. *I bring it up because it is something that may be applicable to CentOS.There is a tunneling*pseudo-interface which is only IPv6; it has two addresses, the IPv6 address, and a local-link IPv6 address. *The hardware interfaces also have two addresses, an IPv6 local-link back to the tunnel, and an IPv4 address given by the router.
However, I am not sure that this is efficient for anything other than a light-use personal machine, and unfortunately I'm not sure what happens when it is connected to an IPv6 router! ):Attached is a screen shot since I'm not sure that my description gave it justice.

Rob

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:21 AM, Tom H <tomh0665@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:13 AM, RedShift <redshift@pandora.be> wrote:



> On 12/05/10 12:50, Rudi Ahlers wrote:

>>

>> (http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3915471/IPv4+Nearing+Final+Days.htm),



>

> Haven't switched yet, I have IPv6 at home using sixxs.

>

> I can't even figure out what address ranges are reserved for private use, is there even such a concept in IPv6?



I think that site-local ("fec0:: - fef::") is the ipv6

more-or-less-equivalent of ipv4 private addresses.

_______________________________________________

CentOS mailing list

CentOS@centos.org

http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos




_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-05-2010, 01:27 PM
Ryan Wagoner
 
Default IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Rudi Ahlers <Rudi@softdux.com> wrote:
> Seeing as IPV4 is near it's end of life
> (http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3915471/IPv4+Nearing+Final+Days.htm),
> I'm curios as who know whether everyone is ready for the changeover to
> IPV6?
>
> Is anyone using it in production already, and what are your experiences with it?
>
> --
> Kind Regards
> Rudi Ahlers
> SoftDux
>
> Website: http://www.SoftDux.com
> Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com
> Office: 087 805 9573
> Cell: 082 554 7532

I've been using IPv6 with Vyatta through a tunnel broker (he.net). I'm
running a dual stack configuration and have a few websites enabled. I
have been holding off my email as Zimbra isn't fully compliant. The
other holdup is that ISPs, like Verizon FIOS, aren't supporting it. I
called Verizon FIOS's business support line and when I asked about
obtaining a IPVv6 /64 or /48, he asked me what IPv6 was. For now the
tunnel broker is great, but it adds complexity and there is no SLA.

What bothers me about IPv6 is that they used : to separate the address
portions. This makes extra work to go directly to the IP in a browser,
configure Apache, etc as it has to be put in []. You also can't browse
IPv6 network shares by IP. At least in Windows you have to replace :
with - and append . ipv6-literal.net

Stateless auto configuration works great, but I don't use it on my
servers. The address becomes too long to keep track of so I have
manually configured them. It looks like most sites supporting IPv6
have done the same.

With stateless configuration on the clients I loose the dynamic DNS
that DHCP provides. The DHCP6 server on CentOS 5.5 doesn't support
dynamic DNS updates either. I use it to only hand out the DNS server
address. CentOS 6 will come with the ISC DHCPv6 server that will
support dynamic DNS. When that happens I plan to switch over to DHCP
entirely so DNS will be updated. It is really annoying to see last
login by some random IPv6 address on my CentOS boxes.

It is great to see that NAT is gone. No more UPnP or NAT port mapping
nonsense. On my Vyatta box I have just blocked all incoming IPv6
traffic that is no established or related. I think allowed only ICMP
echo request to any IPv6 address and ports for my servers. This makes
it just as secure as IPv4 with NAT.

The other issue I foresee is all the Windows XP users. Windows XP
doesn't support a native IPv6 implementation. It can only query DNS
through IPv4. Microsoft needs to pull the plug on Windows XP. Although
running IPv6 only is a few if not more years away.

Ryan
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-06-2010, 10:27 AM
David Sommerseth
 
Default IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

On 05/12/10 14:21, Tom H wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:13 AM, RedShift <redshift@pandora.be> wrote:
>> On 12/05/10 12:50, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
>>>
>>> (http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3915471/IPv4+Nearing+Final+Days.htm),
>>
>> Haven't switched yet, I have IPv6 at home using sixxs.
>>
>> I can't even figure out what address ranges are reserved for private use, is there even such a concept in IPv6?
>
> I think that site-local ("fec0:: - fef::") is the ipv6
> more-or-less-equivalent of ipv4 private addresses.

Yes, that's correct and it is deprecated.
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3879.txt>

With IPv6 there is plenty of addresses for everyone so you basically use
your own assigned official IPv6 address space and setup your own private
/64 net and block that subnet in your firewalls.

Another thing, there is no NAT and it will not be implemented as we know
it in IPv4. To call NAT a security feature is also a faulty
understanding. As NAT only prevents access from outside to some
computer inside a network which is NAT'ed. This restriction and
filtering is the task of the firewall anyway, which does the NAT anyway.

NAT basically just breaks a lot of protocols and enforces complex
firewalls which needs to understand a lot of different protocols to be
able to do things correctly. Which often do not work as well as it could.


kind regards,

David Sommerseth

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 12-06-2010, 12:22 PM
Adam Tauno Williams
 
Default IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 13:50 +0200, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> Seeing as IPV4 is near it's end of life
> (http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3915471/IPv4+Nearing+Final+Days.htm),
> I'm curios as who know whether everyone is ready for the changeover to
> IPV6?
> Is anyone using it in production already, and what are your experiences with it?

Yes, dual-stack, internally. It works fine; it is certainly nicer to
manage than IPv4. Nearly everything supports it at this point.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:47 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org