[gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Dale]

Howdy,

I got a link to this:

http://www.worldipv6day.org/

 From there, there is a link to test whether the new IPv6 works on my 
system and between me and the reat of the world.  It appears I am not 
ready.  It complained about the DNS server for the most part.  Funny 
thing is, I use googles DNS servers.  8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 are the 
settings.  I find it ironic that Google is one of the ones hosting this 
event and it appears their server is not ready.  Makes me think. < Dale 
scratches chin a bit >

Should I have the USE flag ipv6 enabled or should I leave it off for 
now?  If so, anyone had any trouble with it or is this a trivial change?

Thanks much.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Dale]

Dale wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> I got a link to this:
>
> http://www.worldipv6day.org/
>
> From there, there is a link to test whether the new IPv6 works on my 
> system and between me and the reat of the world.  It appears I am not 
> ready.  It complained about the DNS server for the most part.  Funny 
> thing is, I use googles DNS servers.  8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 are the 
> settings.  I find it ironic that Google is one of the ones hosting 
> this event and it appears their server is not ready.  Makes me think. 
> < Dale scratches chin a bit >
>
> Should I have the USE flag ipv6 enabled or should I leave it off for 
> now?  If so, anyone had any trouble with it or is this a trivial change?
>
> Thanks much.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>


Actually, it is enabled already.  Here is its complaint list:

Test with IPv6 DNS record
bad (0.261s)

Test IPv6 without DNS
bad (0.003s)

Test IPv6 large packet
bad (0.238s)

Test if your ISP's DNS server uses IPv6
timeout (15.014s)

Is there anything I need to change here to get everything ready or is it 
beyond our control anyway?

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Adam Carter]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 345 bytes --]

>
> Actually, it is enabled already.  Here is its complaint list:
>
> Test with IPv6 DNS record
> bad (0.261s)
>

Works for me (asking for v6 record using v4 transport). I dont have v6
transport.

/home/adam$ host -t aaaa www.google.com
www.google.com is an alias for www.l.google.com.
www.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2404:6800:4006:802::1010

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 686 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 730 bytes --]

On Wednesday 08 Jun 2011 03:18:47 Adam Carter wrote:
> > Actually, it is enabled already.  Here is its complaint list:
> > 
> > Test with IPv6 DNS record
> > bad (0.261s)
> 
> Works for me (asking for v6 record using v4 transport). I dont have v6
> transport.
> 
> /home/adam$ host -t aaaa www.google.com
> www.google.com is an alias for www.l.google.com.
> www.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2404:6800:4006:802::1010

Most/all domestic routers do not do ipv6 yet, or ipv6 in ipv4 tunnelling.  
This means that you may need to terminate the tunnel at your PC and use your 
PC as the router for ipv6 thereafter in your LAN.

All this assumes that your ISP is offering ipv6 in the first place.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Hans de Graaff]

On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 20:27:45 -0500, Dale wrote:


>  From there, there is a link to test whether the new IPv6 works on my
> system and between me and the reat of the world.  It appears I am not
> ready.  It complained about the DNS server for the most part.  Funny
> thing is, I use googles DNS servers.  8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 are the
> settings. 

So you are explicitly using IPv4 addresses for your DNS. This is what the 
test complains about: to get full marks you need to connect to a DNS 
server via IPv6 as well. I'm not sure if Google provides public DNS via 
IPv6 yet.

> Should I have the USE flag ipv6 enabled or should I leave it off for
> now?  If so, anyone had any trouble with it or is this a trivial change?

You should leave this enabled unless you have a specific reason to turn 
it off.

Kind regards,

Hans

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Tuesday 07 June 2011 20:27:45 Dale wrote:


1&1:

Test mit IPv4 DNS Eintrag	  	
ok (0.712s) verwende ipv4
Test mit IPv6 DNS Eintrag	  	
ok (0.712s) verwende ipv6 6to4
Test mit Dual Stack DNS Eintrag	  	
ok (0.726s) verwende ipv4
Test mit Dual Stack und grosse Pakete	  	
ok (0.665s) verwende ipv4
Test IPv4 ohne DNS	  	
ok (0.417s) verwende ipv4
Test IPv6 ohne DNS	  	
ok (0.440s) verwende ipv6 6to4
Test grosse IPv6 Pakete	  	
ok (0.734s) verwende ipv6 6to4
Test ob der DNS server des ISP IPv6 unterstützt	  	
bad (1.401s)

as the site explains the dns test is a goodie and failing it is not a big 
deal.


-- 
#163933

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Dale]

Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 June 2011 20:27:45 Dale wrote:
>
>
> 1&1:
>
> Test mit IPv4 DNS Eintrag	  	
> ok (0.712s) verwende ipv4
> Test mit IPv6 DNS Eintrag	  	
> ok (0.712s) verwende ipv6 6to4
> Test mit Dual Stack DNS Eintrag	  	
> ok (0.726s) verwende ipv4
> Test mit Dual Stack und grosse Pakete	  	
> ok (0.665s) verwende ipv4
> Test IPv4 ohne DNS	  	
> ok (0.417s) verwende ipv4
> Test IPv6 ohne DNS	  	
> ok (0.440s) verwende ipv6 6to4
> Test grosse IPv6 Pakete	  	
> ok (0.734s) verwende ipv6 6to4
> Test ob der DNS server des ISP IPv6 unterstützt	  	
> bad (1.401s)
>
> as the site explains the dns test is a goodie and failing it is not a big
> deal.
>
>    

Well, I have to ask this.  If the DNS fails, how will my browser know 
where to go?  From my understanding, when I type in abc.com and hit 
enter or go, the first thing it does is go to a DNS server to see what 
the actual number is.

Another question.  Mine failed on some of the ones yours passed on.  Is 
that a local setting or something between me and the site I am going 
to?  In other words, can I change something here or is it outside my 
control?  I think it is outside my control but want to make sure.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Wednesday 08 June 2011 13:59:36 Dale wrote:
> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 07 June 2011 20:27:45 Dale wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 1&1:
> > 
> > Test mit IPv4 DNS Eintrag
> > ok (0.712s) verwende ipv4
> > Test mit IPv6 DNS Eintrag
> > ok (0.712s) verwende ipv6 6to4
> > Test mit Dual Stack DNS Eintrag
> > ok (0.726s) verwende ipv4
> > Test mit Dual Stack und grosse Pakete
> > ok (0.665s) verwende ipv4
> > Test IPv4 ohne DNS
> > ok (0.417s) verwende ipv4
> > Test IPv6 ohne DNS
> > ok (0.440s) verwende ipv6 6to4
> > Test grosse IPv6 Pakete
> > ok (0.734s) verwende ipv6 6to4
> > Test ob der DNS server des ISP IPv6 unterstützt
> > bad (1.401s)
> > 
> > as the site explains the dns test is a goodie and failing it is not a
> > big
> > deal.
> 
> Well, I have to ask this.  If the DNS fails, how will my browser know
> where to go?  From my understanding, when I type in abc.com and hit
> enter or go, the first thing it does is go to a DNS server to see what
> the actual number is.

Read the FAQ and Info posted.
From the website:

If this test fails: it means that the DNS resolver you are using, requires 
IPv4 to reach the DNS authoritative servers of your favoriate web sites. In 
the near future, every web site of consequence will remain accessible in this 
form, so there is no immediate danger.

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Dale]

Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> Read the FAQ and Info posted.
> > From the website:
>
> If this test fails: it means that the DNS resolver you are using, requires
> IPv4 to reach the DNS authoritative servers of your favoriate web sites. In
> the near future, every web site of consequence will remain accessible in this
> form, so there is no immediate danger.
>
>    

Yea but I use Gentoo.  If I wanted to be THAT far behind, I'd go back to 
Mandriva or something.  ;-)

Seriously, I just don't want to get to far behind and then have trouble 
playing catch up.  It's kind of like not updating Gentoo for a year.  
It's a mess to catch up and some periods of time are worse than others.

It's almost midnight here.  I'm going to go put the junkyard A/C 
compressor in my car.  It's pushing 100F here and I need to get that fixed.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Wednesday 08 June 2011 23:56:32 Dale wrote:
> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > Read the FAQ and Info posted.
> > 
> > > From the website:
> > If this test fails: it means that the DNS resolver you are using,
> > requires IPv4 to reach the DNS authoritative servers of your favoriate
> > web sites. In the near future, every web site of consequence will
> > remain accessible in this form, so there is no immediate danger.

There is no 'falling behind'. If there is a need to migrate them to ipv6 they 
will do that. As end user you have nothing to worry about.

-- 
#163933

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Paul Hartman]

2011/6/8 Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@googlemail.com>:
> 1&1:
>
> Test mit IPv4 DNS Eintrag
> ok (0.712s) verwende ipv4
> Test mit IPv6 DNS Eintrag
> ok (0.712s) verwende ipv6 6to4
> Test mit Dual Stack DNS Eintrag
> ok (0.726s) verwende ipv4
> Test mit Dual Stack und grosse Pakete
> ok (0.665s) verwende ipv4
> Test IPv4 ohne DNS
> ok (0.417s) verwende ipv4
> Test IPv6 ohne DNS
> ok (0.440s) verwende ipv6 6to4
> Test grosse IPv6 Pakete
> ok (0.734s) verwende ipv6 6to4
> Test ob der DNS server des ISP IPv6 unterstützt
> bad (1.401s)
>
> as the site explains the dns test is a goodie and failing it is not a big
> deal.

Charter Communications cable internet:

Test with IPv4 DNS record 	  	
ok (0.580s) using ipv4
Test with IPv6 DNS record 	  	
ok (0.268s) using ipv6
Test with Dual Stack DNS record 	  	
ok (0.256s) using ipv6
Test for Dual Stack DNS and large packet 	  	
ok (0.090s) using ipv6
Test IPv4 without DNS 	  	
ok (0.148s) using ipv4
Test IPv6 without DNS 	  	
ok (0.162s) using ipv6
Test IPv6 large packet 	  	
ok (0.092s) using ipv6
Test if your ISP's DNS server uses IPv6 	  	
ok (0.316s) using ipv6

:)

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 2555 bytes --]

On Wednesday 08 Jun 2011 20:51:10 Paul Hartman wrote:
> 2011/6/8 Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@googlemail.com>:
> > 1&1:
> > 
> > Test mit IPv4 DNS Eintrag
> > ok (0.712s) verwende ipv4
> > Test mit IPv6 DNS Eintrag
> > ok (0.712s) verwende ipv6 6to4
> > Test mit Dual Stack DNS Eintrag
> > ok (0.726s) verwende ipv4
> > Test mit Dual Stack und grosse Pakete
> > ok (0.665s) verwende ipv4
> > Test IPv4 ohne DNS
> > ok (0.417s) verwende ipv4
> > Test IPv6 ohne DNS
> > ok (0.440s) verwende ipv6 6to4
> > Test grosse IPv6 Pakete
> > ok (0.734s) verwende ipv6 6to4
> > Test ob der DNS server des ISP IPv6 unterstützt
> > bad (1.401s)
> > 
> > as the site explains the dns test is a goodie and failing it is not a big
> > deal.
> 
> Charter Communications cable internet:
> 
> Test with IPv4 DNS record
> ok (0.580s) using ipv4
> Test with IPv6 DNS record
> ok (0.268s) using ipv6
> Test with Dual Stack DNS record
> ok (0.256s) using ipv6
> Test for Dual Stack DNS and large packet
> ok (0.090s) using ipv6
> Test IPv4 without DNS
> ok (0.148s) using ipv4
> Test IPv6 without DNS
> ok (0.162s) using ipv6
> Test IPv6 large packet
> ok (0.092s) using ipv6
> Test if your ISP's DNS server uses IPv6
> ok (0.316s) using ipv6
> 
> :)

I find this rather confusing!  Paul is your ISP offering native IPv6 and if 
they do does your router speak ipv6?

What does your /etc/resolv.conf show?


When I run this test I get:

Test with IPv4 DNS record 	  	
ok (0.552s) using ipv4
Test with IPv6 DNS record 	  	
bad (0.197s)
Test with Dual Stack DNS record 	  	
ok (0.558s) using ipv4
Test for Dual Stack DNS and large packet 	  	
ok (0.239s) using ipv4
Test IPv4 without DNS 	  	
ok (0.368s) using ipv4
Test IPv6 without DNS 	  	
bad (0.022s)
Test IPv6 large packet 	  	
bad (0.025s)
Test if your ISP's DNS server uses IPv6 	  	
ok (0.691s) using ipv4

When I run it with Windows 7 I get:

Test with IPv4 DNS record 	  	
ok (0.689s) using ipv4	 
Test with IPv6 DNS record 	  	
bad (0.022s)
Test with Dual Stack DNS record 	  	
ok 	(0.544s) using ipv4
Test for Dual Stack DNS and large packet 	  
ok (0.241s) using ipv4
Test IPv4 without DNS 	  			
ok (0.384s) using ipv4
Test IPv6 without DNS 	  	
ok (3.593s) using ipv6 Teredo
Test IPv6 large packet 	  	
bad (0.018s)
Test if your ISP's DNS server uses IPv6 	  
ok (0.387s) using ipv4 

From Windows7 I can ping ipv6 addresses (but not domain names) because it uses 
Teredo, but from Linux I cannot.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Paul Hartman]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 Jun 2011 20:51:10 Paul Hartman wrote:
>>
>> Charter Communications cable internet:
>>
>> Test with IPv4 DNS record
>> ok (0.580s) using ipv4
>> Test with IPv6 DNS record
>> ok (0.268s) using ipv6
>> Test with Dual Stack DNS record
>> ok (0.256s) using ipv6
>> Test for Dual Stack DNS and large packet
>> ok (0.090s) using ipv6
>> Test IPv4 without DNS
>> ok (0.148s) using ipv4
>> Test IPv6 without DNS
>> ok (0.162s) using ipv6
>> Test IPv6 large packet
>> ok (0.092s) using ipv6
>> Test if your ISP's DNS server uses IPv6
>> ok (0.316s) using ipv6
>>
>> :)
>
> I find this rather confusing!  Paul is your ISP offering native IPv6 and if
> they do does your router speak ipv6?

My ISP (Charter) does not offer native IPv6 yet, but they do offer a
6RD Border Relay. It is basically an IPv6 tunnel that runs over an
IPv4 network, but the important part is that the tunnel server is
running within my ISP's network. That means I get my full internet
speed on IPv6 traffic!

My wireless router is running DD-WRT (which is a Linux distro). It is
running kernel 2.6.34 and has all the ipv6 modules enabled in the
kernel. Basically, it is setup by loading the "sit" module
(CONFIG_IPV6_SIT_6RD in kernel config). Then using the "ip" command to
create a sit tunnel and set up the routes for IPv6 traffic, and then
starts radvd (the IPv6 router advertisement daemon, think of it as a
kind of DHCP server for IPv6 addresses). The process should be exactly
the same on OpenWRT.

After that, machines on my local network (including wifi) can get both
IPv4 and IPv6 addresses from the router and can talk to the outside
world on either network.

(and then when you get to that point, you should create IPv6 firewall
rules on the router and/or computers, or else risk leaving their
entire network open to bad guys)

> What does your /etc/resolv.conf show?

$ cat /etc/resolv.conf
nameserver 127.0.0.1

(because I run net-dns/unbound on my local machine). For the other
computers/devices they use the DNS server which runs on the router,
192.168.0.1

My ISP does offer DNS servers at actual IPv6 addresses, though I'm not
using them.

> When I run this test I get:
>
> Test with IPv4 DNS record
> ok (0.552s) using ipv4
> Test with IPv6 DNS record
> bad (0.197s)
> Test with Dual Stack DNS record
> ok (0.558s) using ipv4
> Test for Dual Stack DNS and large packet
> ok (0.239s) using ipv4
> Test IPv4 without DNS
> ok (0.368s) using ipv4
> Test IPv6 without DNS
> bad (0.022s)
> Test IPv6 large packet
> bad (0.025s)
> Test if your ISP's DNS server uses IPv6
> ok (0.691s) using ipv4

For example all this stuff just works normally here:

$ host ipv6.google.com
ipv6.google.com is an alias for ipv6.l.google.com.
ipv6.l.google.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:800b::93

# traceroute6 ipv6.google.com
traceroute to ipv6.l.google.com (2001:4860:800b::93) from
2602:100:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx, 30 hops max, 24 byte packets
 1  2602:100:xx:xx:1::1 (2602:100:xx:xx:1::1)  0.459 ms  0.383 ms  0.353 ms
 2  * * *
 3  2001:506:100:6c::1 (2001:506:100:6c::1)  11.29 ms  7.999 ms  7.773 ms
 4  bbr01olvemo.tge0-3-0-4.mo.olve.charter.com (2001:506:100:23::1)
9.093 ms  7.715 ms  7.691 ms
 5  bbr02chcgil.tge0-3-0-0.il.chcg.charter.com (2001:506:100:55::2)
33.981 ms  25.812 ms  23.573 ms
 6  prr01chcgil.tge2-4.il.chcg.charter.com (2001:506:100:317::1)
16.862 ms  17.737 ms  16.46 ms
 7  v201.core1.chi1.he.net (2001:470:0:114::1)  18.04 ms  17.368 ms  24.015 ms
 8  * * *
 9  2001:4860::1:0:92e (2001:4860::1:0:92e)  34.911 ms  18.025 ms  25.379 ms
10  2001:4860::8:0:281e (2001:4860::8:0:281e)  27.843 ms  28.74 ms  28.569 ms
11  2001:4860::2:0:7ef (2001:4860::2:0:7ef)  27.568 ms  28.365 ms  28.221 ms
12  2001:4860:0:1::83 (2001:4860:0:1::83)  27.586 ms  37.284 ms  35.649 ms
13  iw-in-x93.1e100.net (2001:4860:800b::93)  27.731 ms  27.647 ms  28.372 ms

> From Windows7 I can ping ipv6 addresses (but not domain names) because it uses
> Teredo, but from Linux I cannot.

For Microsoft Windows (at least Windows 7), when it detects IPv6
advertisement server on the local network, it will use it
automatically. When no IPv6 is detected, it uses Teredo instead. Maybe
your DNS servers don't return IPv6 addresses?

On my wife's Windows 7 laptop, it just worked perfectly after I
enabled it on my router and her wifi reconnected. All tests on
test-ipv6.com pass except for the last DNS test. She can go to sites
like http://www.v6.facebook.com no problems.

BTW, Windows Vista and 7 generate randomized host IDs for public IPv6
addresses, it's generally advised to disable that. You can do that by
running this at administrator cmd prompt:
netsh interface ipv6 set global randomizeidentifiers=disabled

And now I'll try not to talk about Windows on this list again for the
remainder of the year. ;)

Hope that helps!

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 3624 bytes --]

On Thursday 09 Jun 2011 02:25:43 Paul Hartman wrote:

> My wireless router is running DD-WRT (which is a Linux distro). It is
> running kernel 2.6.34 and has all the ipv6 modules enabled in the
> kernel. Basically, it is setup by loading the "sit" module
> (CONFIG_IPV6_SIT_6RD in kernel config). Then using the "ip" command to
> create a sit tunnel and set up the routes for IPv6 traffic, and then
> starts radvd (the IPv6 router advertisement daemon, think of it as a
> kind of DHCP server for IPv6 addresses). The process should be exactly
> the same on OpenWRT.

Oh I see, that explains it!


> > What does your /etc/resolv.conf show?
> 
> $ cat /etc/resolv.conf
> nameserver 127.0.0.1
> 
> (because I run net-dns/unbound on my local machine). For the other
> computers/devices they use the DNS server which runs on the router,
> 192.168.0.1
> 
> My ISP does offer DNS servers at actual IPv6 addresses, though I'm not
> using them.

So when a ipv6 query arrives at your local resolver (router) from one of your 
LAN machines on the 192.168.0.1 address, the router knows to send it down the 
tunnel to be resolved at the ISP's resolvers?


> For Microsoft Windows (at least Windows 7), when it detects IPv6
> advertisement server on the local network, it will use it
> automatically. When no IPv6 is detected, it uses Teredo instead. Maybe
> your DNS servers don't return IPv6 addresses?

Well, yes my router is ipv4 only and therefore it would not resolve ipv6 
addresses.


> On my wife's Windows 7 laptop, it just worked perfectly after I
> enabled it on my router and her wifi reconnected. All tests on
> test-ipv6.com pass except for the last DNS test. She can go to sites
> like http://www.v6.facebook.com no problems.

That's because Windows7 use toredo servers/relays to resolve and connect to 
ipv6 addresses.


> BTW, Windows Vista and 7 generate randomized host IDs for public IPv6
> addresses, it's generally advised to disable that. You can do that by
> running this at administrator cmd prompt:
> netsh interface ipv6 set global randomizeidentifiers=disabled

I was looking at the same in the Linux kernel scratching my head if I should 
enable this or not ...

What does it do - not sure I understand what such temporary addresses are used 
for:
============================================
 IPv6: Privacy Extensions (RFC 3041) support 

CONFIG_IPV6_PRIVACY:                                                                 

Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6 support.  
With this option, additional periodically-altered pseudo-random global-scope 
unicast address(es) will be assigned to your interface(s).                                                                  

We use our standard pseudo-random algorithm to generate the randomized 
interface identifier, instead of one described in RFC 3041.

By default the kernel does not generate temporary addresses. To use temporary 
addresses, do

       echo 2 >/proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/all/use_tempaddr                             

See <file:Documentation/networking/ip-sysctl.txt> for details.                      

Symbol: IPV6_PRIVACY [=n]
Type  : boolean
Prompt: IPv6: Privacy Extensions (RFC 3041) support
   Defined at net/ipv6/Kconfig:24
   Depends on: NET [=y] && INET [=y] && IPV6 [=y]
   Location:
     -> Networking support (NET [=y])
       -> Networking options
         -> TCP/IP networking (INET [=y])
           -> The IPv6 protocol (IPV6 [=y]) 
============================================
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Paul Hartman]

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:46 AM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On my wife's Windows 7 laptop, it just worked perfectly after I
>> enabled it on my router and her wifi reconnected. All tests on
>> test-ipv6.com pass except for the last DNS test. She can go to sites
>> like http://www.v6.facebook.com no problems.
>
> That's because Windows7 use toredo servers/relays to resolve and connect to
> ipv6 addresses.

I disagree. :) It gets an IPv6 address from my ISP and no traffic
flows through Microsoft's relay servers. It works the same as my
gentoo boxes and my cell phone. The only tunnel is the one between my
router and my ISP's 6RD server. Everything on my side of the network
just uses native regular IPv6 as far as the clients are concerned.

AFAIK, Win vista/7 only uses teredo when no actual IPv6 internet
connectivity exists. And when it's not part of a corporate domain. And
when the host you're connecting to does not have an IPv4 address.
Again, that's AFAIK. :)

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Paul Hartman]

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:46 AM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
>> BTW, Windows Vista and 7 generate randomized host IDs for public IPv6
>> addresses, it's generally advised to disable that. You can do that by
>> running this at administrator cmd prompt:
>> netsh interface ipv6 set global randomizeidentifiers=disabled
>
> I was looking at the same in the Linux kernel scratching my head if I should
> enable this or not ...
>
> What does it do - not sure I understand what such temporary addresses are used
> for:
> ============================================
>  IPv6: Privacy Extensions (RFC 3041) support
>
> CONFIG_IPV6_PRIVACY:

Sorry, I described the problem poorly. More specifically I should have
said that it should be disabled because Windows does it /wrong/. :)

In IPv6, link-local address is required (begins with fe80::) even when
an internet-routable address exists. It is derived from your network
prefix and your MAC address. Normally, the public IPv6 address also
contains your MAC address. Every IPv6 interface is going to have at
least 2 different addresses.

Imagine a world where IPv6 is everywhere. You take your laptop home,
to the cafe, to work, to a hotel on a business trip. Despite using
different networks in each place, your MAC address will tie them all
together. The governments and corporations are tracking this and now
know even more about you. At least, that's what people worry about.

In Linux, enabling the privacy extensions adds an additional,
temporary IPv6 address to the interface, with a randomized "MAC" part,
and it changes regularly (every hour or two? something like that). The
link-local address still contains the MAC-based IPv6 address, and the
standard routable IPv6 address is also available but not used by
default for outgoing connections. So, inside your network, things are
predictable and unchanging, which makes management of clients, routing
of traffic, firewall rules, etc. easier to deal with. To the outside
world, your IP address is constantly changing and can't be used to
track you as easily as it would be if the MAC portion of the address
were consistent.

In Windows, however, when that option is enabled, they wrongly
randomize ALL of the addresses, even the local, rather than just
creating a temp random public address. Which means every time that
machine reboots it's going to look like a new client on the local
network, and any local network setup you have pertaining to a certain
IP are going to be a pain to maintain. Depending on your usage, maybe
that doesn't matter, but in general, on Windows machines, it's
considered a buggy implementation and is undesired.

In Linux, it should be absolutely fine to use. In your
/etc/sysctl.conf you can add these lines to enable it on every
interface by default, assuming you enabled in your kernel config:

net.ipv6.conf.all.use_tempaddr = 2
net.ipv6.conf.default.use_tempaddr = 2

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 3669 bytes --]

On Thursday 09 Jun 2011 16:51:29 Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:46 AM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> BTW, Windows Vista and 7 generate randomized host IDs for public IPv6
> >> addresses, it's generally advised to disable that. You can do that by
> >> running this at administrator cmd prompt:
> >> netsh interface ipv6 set global randomizeidentifiers=disabled
> > 
> > I was looking at the same in the Linux kernel scratching my head if I
> > should enable this or not ...
> > 
> > What does it do - not sure I understand what such temporary addresses are
> > used for:
> > ============================================
> >  IPv6: Privacy Extensions (RFC 3041) support
> 
> > CONFIG_IPV6_PRIVACY:
> Sorry, I described the problem poorly. More specifically I should have
> said that it should be disabled because Windows does it /wrong/. :)
> 
> In IPv6, link-local address is required (begins with fe80::) even when
> an internet-routable address exists. It is derived from your network
> prefix and your MAC address. Normally, the public IPv6 address also
> contains your MAC address. Every IPv6 interface is going to have at
> least 2 different addresses.
> 
> Imagine a world where IPv6 is everywhere. You take your laptop home,
> to the cafe, to work, to a hotel on a business trip. Despite using
> different networks in each place, your MAC address will tie them all
> together. The governments and corporations are tracking this and now
> know even more about you. At least, that's what people worry about.
> 
> In Linux, enabling the privacy extensions adds an additional,
> temporary IPv6 address to the interface, with a randomized "MAC" part,
> and it changes regularly (every hour or two? something like that). The
> link-local address still contains the MAC-based IPv6 address, and the
> standard routable IPv6 address is also available but not used by
> default for outgoing connections. So, inside your network, things are
> predictable and unchanging, which makes management of clients, routing
> of traffic, firewall rules, etc. easier to deal with. To the outside
> world, your IP address is constantly changing and can't be used to
> track you as easily as it would be if the MAC portion of the address
> were consistent.
> 
> In Windows, however, when that option is enabled, they wrongly
> randomize ALL of the addresses, even the local, rather than just
> creating a temp random public address. Which means every time that
> machine reboots it's going to look like a new client on the local
> network, and any local network setup you have pertaining to a certain
> IP are going to be a pain to maintain. Depending on your usage, maybe
> that doesn't matter, but in general, on Windows machines, it's
> considered a buggy implementation and is undesired.
> 
> In Linux, it should be absolutely fine to use. In your
> /etc/sysctl.conf you can add these lines to enable it on every
> interface by default, assuming you enabled in your kernel config:
> 
> net.ipv6.conf.all.use_tempaddr = 2
> net.ipv6.conf.default.use_tempaddr = 2

Excellent explanation!  Thank you.  :-)

Now was it that difficult to add a couple of meaningful lines in the kernel 
documentation, so that any other than the kernel hacker who wrote that module 
would learn that its there to anonymise your ipv6 address for privacy 
purposes?

I take it that loading this module would cut both ways.  If I were to allow 
connections to my server only for *my* IP address, then that would be quite 
difficult to achieve if my IP address changed every few minutes.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Paul Hartman]

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> I take it that loading this module would cut both ways.  If I were to allow
> connections to my server only for *my* IP address, then that would be quite
> difficult to achieve if my IP address changed every few minutes.

Since you can have multiple addresses on an interface, you could
theoretically create a separate route just for your connections to
your server, using a consistent address rather than the randomized
one.

And of course in a world where we all get a large pool of address
space to do with what we please, you could skip the whole
auto-configuration thing entirely and just manually assign whatever
addresses you want. And another bonus is that there are plenty of
funny things we can spell in hexadecimal. ;)

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Tanstaafl]

On 2011-06-08 9:25 PM, Paul Hartman wrote:
> After that, machines on my local network (including wifi) can get both
> IPv4 and IPv6 addresses from the router and can talk to the outside
> world on either network.

I'm getting a headache...

Is there a decent guide that explains IPV6 for noobs who don't speak IP?
Meaning, in plain english, how to set it up and make it work, without
having to understand all of the granular technical aspects?

Also - how long is it going to be before there are parts of the internet
that you can't get to without speaking IPV6?

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Mick]

On 9 June 2011 12:16, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
> On 2011-06-08 9:25 PM, Paul Hartman wrote:
>> After that, machines on my local network (including wifi) can get both
>> IPv4 and IPv6 addresses from the router and can talk to the outside
>> world on either network.
>
> I'm getting a headache...
>
> Is there a decent guide that explains IPV6 for noobs who don't speak IP?
> Meaning, in plain english, how to set it up and make it work, without
> having to understand all of the granular technical aspects?
>
> Also - how long is it going to be before there are parts of the internet
> that you can't get to without speaking IPV6?

There's a number of howto's in google, but I'm not sure how they work
if you are running a laptop and connect through different networks
with/without ipv6 provision.

This is the Gentoo guide:  http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/ipv6.xml
-- 
Regards,
Mick

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Paul Hartman]

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
> On 2011-06-08 9:25 PM, Paul Hartman wrote:
>> After that, machines on my local network (including wifi) can get both
>> IPv4 and IPv6 addresses from the router and can talk to the outside
>> world on either network.
>
> I'm getting a headache...
>
> Is there a decent guide that explains IPV6 for noobs who don't speak IP?
> Meaning, in plain english, how to set it up and make it work, without
> having to understand all of the granular technical aspects?

Short version - if your ISP and your networking hardware
(gateway/router/firewall/whatever) already support IPv6, you simply
need to enable all the IPv6 stuff in your kernel, enable "ipv6" USE
flag in your /etc/make.conf and rebuild affected packages. If you use
DHCP/autoconfig it should just work automatically.

Otherwise, you need to jump through the hoops we're talking about to
establish tunnels or other means of getting IPv6 over a network that
is not IPv6-capable. You can decide if you care enough about that kind
of thing to shed your noob-ness and get into it more. :)

The only real benefit of being on IPv6 at the moment is that every
device has an internet-accissble address. That means no more NAT
forwarding from your router to ports on certain devices. Otherwise,
there's basically no perceivable benefits from using IPv6, other than
the geek cred you earn by saying you're on IPv6. :)

Another benefit, a side-effect of the fact that that most places are
NOT ready for IPv6 yet, means many internet filters and loggers ignore
IPv6 packages entirely. I've read that using IPv6 is one way to get
around the great firewalls of oppressive regimes like China, Iran and
universities. :) I don't expect that to last very long once more
people start using it.

For an unscientific example of how many people are using IPv6, the
Mainline DHT network shows several million clients connected on IPv4
but only 78 clients on IPv6...

> Also - how long is it going to be before there are parts of the internet
> that you can't get to without speaking IPV6?

There are some v6-only sites now, but they are basically sites that
also exist on ipv4 internet and are used for testing/proof-of-concept.
Given the billions of non-v6-capable devices on the internet, it would
be commercial suicide for a company to leave the IPv4 Internet any
time soon. I would guess you should be fine for another 10 years using
IPv4-only.

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Paul Hartman]

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Funny thing is, I use googles DNS servers.  8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 are the
> settings.  I find it ironic that Google is one of the ones hosting this
> event and it appears their server is not ready.  Makes me think. < Dale
> scratches chin a bit >

From Google DNS FAQ:

Does Google Public DNS support IPv6?
    Google Public DNS can respond to requests for IPv6 addresses (AAAA
requests), but it does not yet support native IPv6 transport and
cannot talk to IPv6-only authoritative nameservers. Clients should use
IPv4 network connections to use Google Public DNS.

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 21:45 on Wednesday 08 June 2011, Paul Hartman 
did opine thusly:

> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Funny thing is, I use googles DNS servers.  8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 are the
> > settings.  I find it ironic that Google is one of the ones hosting this
> > event and it appears their server is not ready.  Makes me think. < Dale
> > scratches chin a bit >
> 
> From Google DNS FAQ:
> 
> Does Google Public DNS support IPv6?
>     Google Public DNS can respond to requests for IPv6 addresses (AAAA
> requests), but it does not yet support native IPv6 transport and
> cannot talk to IPv6-only authoritative nameservers. Clients should use
> IPv4 network connections to use Google Public DNS.

Almost all large auth servers out there are in exactly that position. Mine 
certainly are. Cisco are waiting in the wings with a gigantic[1] quote for 
what it will take to change that.

[1] When I say "gigantic" I really do mean "gigantic", as in "OMFG, does the 
number of $US fit into the money field in Oracle Financials??". Not "gigantic" 
as in "oh, that's big, bigger than what we normally call big".

Just wanted to add some perspective...

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Paul Hartman]

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:27 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Should I have the USE flag ipv6 enabled or should I leave it off for now?
>  If so, anyone had any trouble with it or is this a trivial change?

Enable the IPv6 stuff in kernel, enable ipv6 USE flag in your
make.conf, rebuild any packages that were -ipv6 before, and you should
be good to go from a basics standpoint.

After that, you need actual IPv6 service from your ISP (and modem and
router), or tunnel over IPv4 through a provider.

My cable ISP has a 6RD Border Relay. My DD-WRT router supports IPv6
and I set it up to make the connection to the 6RD, so on my client
machines there's no special setup needed, it just magically works
without any problems.

If your router doesn't support it, you can still establish IPv6 tunnel
from your Gentoo box directly, there are several ways to do it.
Something like net-misc/miredo is extremely simple to set up if you
just want to try it, and to see the dancing turtle on www.kame.net :)

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Dale]

Paul Hartman wrote:
>
> Enable the IPv6 stuff in kernel, enable ipv6 USE flag in your
> make.conf, rebuild any packages that were -ipv6 before, and you should
> be good to go from a basics standpoint.
>
> After that, you need actual IPv6 service from your ISP (and modem and
> router), or tunnel over IPv4 through a provider.
>
> My cable ISP has a 6RD Border Relay. My DD-WRT router supports IPv6
> and I set it up to make the connection to the 6RD, so on my client
> machines there's no special setup needed, it just magically works
> without any problems.
>
> If your router doesn't support it, you can still establish IPv6 tunnel
> from your Gentoo box directly, there are several ways to do it.
> Something like net-misc/miredo is extremely simple to set up if you
> just want to try it, and to see the dancing turtle on www.kame.net :)
>
>    

Now what was I thinking.  Oh, wait.  I wasn't thinking.  There was the 
problem right there.  I hadn't enabled any of the IPv6 stuff in the 
kernel.  Jeeez, what a idiot.  I haven't even thought of the kernel 
settings. < sighs >

Anyway, I enabled a lot of stuff in the kernel and will reboot at some 
point and test again.  I'm not sure when I will be rebooting tho.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Pandu Poluan]

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 09:15, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Now what was I thinking.  Oh, wait.  I wasn't thinking.  There was the
> problem right there.  I hadn't enabled any of the IPv6 stuff in the kernel.
>  Jeeez, what a idiot.  I haven't even thought of the kernel settings. <
> sighs >
>

You owe me a new keyboard. The one I had wasn't sympathetic with hot
tea being spurted into its innards :-)

> Anyway, I enabled a lot of stuff in the kernel and will reboot at some point
> and test again.  I'm not sure when I will be rebooting tho.
>

You're already late for World IPv6 day, tho' :-)

Rgds,
-- 
Pandu E Poluan
~ IT Optimizer ~
Visit my Blog: http://pepoluan.posterous.com
Google Talk:    pepoluan
Y! messenger: pepoluan
MSN / Live:      pepoluan@hotmail.com (do not send email here)
Skype:            pepoluan
More on me:  My LinkedIn Account  My Facebook Account

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Dale]

Pandu Poluan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 09:15, Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  wrote:
>    
>> Now what was I thinking.  Oh, wait.  I wasn't thinking.  There was the
>> problem right there.  I hadn't enabled any of the IPv6 stuff in the kernel.
>>   Jeeez, what a idiot.  I haven't even thought of the kernel settings.<
>> sighs>
>>
>>      
> You owe me a new keyboard. The one I had wasn't sympathetic with hot
> tea being spurted into its innards :-)
>
>    
>> Anyway, I enabled a lot of stuff in the kernel and will reboot at some point
>> and test again.  I'm not sure when I will be rebooting tho.
>>
>>      
> You're already late for World IPv6 day, tho' :-)
>
> Rgds,
>    

Sorry bout the keyboard.  Tea huh?  I like mine cold, no ice tho, with 
mucho sugar.  lol

I missed it this time but I'm late a lot on this sort of thing anyway.  
Maybe next time I will be ready.

I'm just hoping html5 will improve some things.  May not but doesn't 
hurt to hope.  I just hope it will eliminate some of the things that are 
such power or memory hogs now.  It may not at first but eventually.  Of 
course, then again there will be something else new to be a power or 
memory hungry beast.

Progress, so painful at times.  ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Paul Hartman]

On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm just hoping html5 will improve some things.  May not but doesn't hurt to
> hope.  I just hope it will eliminate some of the things that are such power
> or memory hogs now.  It may not at first but eventually

Some stuff is already looking good, outside of streaming video, like
http://chrome.angrybirds.com/ which probably would not be possible
without Flash or Java just a couple years ago.

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Dale]

Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  wrote:
>    
>> I'm just hoping html5 will improve some things.  May not but doesn't hurt to
>> hope.  I just hope it will eliminate some of the things that are such power
>> or memory hogs now.  It may not at first but eventually
>>      
> Some stuff is already looking good, outside of streaming video, like
> http://chrome.angrybirds.com/ which probably would not be possible
> without Flash or Java just a couple years ago.
>
>    

So things like youtube won't change any?

Well, I learned something about one of my facebook friends.  She likes 
that bird game too.  I killed one bird but I got to work on my car.  It 
being 100 and no A/C sucks big time.  I got a funeral to go to pretty 
soon so I need to get this fixed.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 08:52 on Thursday 09 June 2011, Dale did opine 
thusly:

> Paul Hartman wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> I'm just hoping html5 will improve some things.  May not but doesn't
> >> hurt to hope.  I just hope it will eliminate some of the things that
> >> are such power or memory hogs now.  It may not at first but eventually
> > 
> > Some stuff is already looking good, outside of streaming video, like
> > http://chrome.angrybirds.com/ which probably would not be possible
> > without Flash or Java just a couple years ago.
> 
> So things like youtube won't change any?

Why do you think it will change at all?

IPv4 is not going away. There is still lots of space available and it has a 
very long life ahead of it still.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 08:52 on Thursday 09 June 2011, Dale did opine
> thusly:
>
>    
>> Paul Hartman wrote:
>>      
>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>        
>>>> I'm just hoping html5 will improve some things.  May not but doesn't
>>>> hurt to hope.  I just hope it will eliminate some of the things that
>>>> are such power or memory hogs now.  It may not at first but eventually
>>>>          
>>> Some stuff is already looking good, outside of streaming video, like
>>> http://chrome.angrybirds.com/ which probably would not be possible
>>> without Flash or Java just a couple years ago.
>>>        
>> So things like youtube won't change any?
>>      
> Why do you think it will change at all?
>
> IPv4 is not going away. There is still lots of space available and it has a
> very long life ahead of it still.
>    

I was just hoping thing like youtube might change for the better.  What 
little I know about html5, it sounds like it is going to be better.  If 
something as big as youtube changes to better its site then others will 
too.

We sort of switched subject from IPv6 to HTML5.  I'm sure IPv4 will be 
around a long time tho.

Now back to finding the leak in my car A/C.  It won't hold a vacuum at 
the moment.  Weird.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1226 bytes --]

OK.  I rebooted and I don't think the test results changed anything.

Test with IPv4 DNS record 		
ok (1.003s) using ipv4
Test with IPv6 DNS record 		
bad (0.496s)
Test with Dual Stack DNS record 		
ok (0.993s) using ipv4
Test for Dual Stack DNS and large packet 		
ok (0.543s)
Test IPv4 without DNS 		
ok (0.988s) using ipv4
Test IPv6 without DNS 		
bad (0.012s)
Test IPv6 large packet 		
bad (0.455s)
Test if your ISP's DNS server uses IPv6 		
timeout (15.018s)



Kernel config.

root@fireball / # cat /usr/src/linux/.config | grep -i ipv6
CONFIG_IPV6=y
CONFIG_IPV6_PRIVACY=y
CONFIG_IPV6_ROUTER_PREF=y
CONFIG_IPV6_ROUTE_INFO=y
CONFIG_IPV6_OPTIMISTIC_DAD=y
# CONFIG_IPV6_MIP6 is not set
CONFIG_IPV6_SIT=y
CONFIG_IPV6_SIT_6RD=y
CONFIG_IPV6_NDISC_NODETYPE=y
CONFIG_IPV6_TUNNEL=y
CONFIG_IPV6_MULTIPLE_TABLES=y
CONFIG_IPV6_SUBTREES=y
CONFIG_IPV6_MROUTE=y
CONFIG_IPV6_MROUTE_MULTIPLE_TABLES=y
CONFIG_IPV6_PIMSM_V2=y
# IPv6: Netfilter Configuration
CONFIG_NF_DEFRAG_IPV6=y
CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK_IPV6=y
CONFIG_IP6_NF_MATCH_IPV6HEADER=y
root@fireball / #

Did I miss anything?  I think most of the failures are outside my rig.  
I don't run the DNS servers for google.  ;-)

Thoughts?  Something I need to check here?

Dale

:-)  :-)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3289 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Paul Hartman]

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thoughts?  Something I need to check here?

Does your ISP offer IPv6? If not, are you using an IPv6 tunnel of some
kind? If not, then you don't have IPv6 connection to the Internet, so
the results look normal.

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Dale]

Paul Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  wrote:
>    
>> Thoughts?  Something I need to check here?
>>      
> Does your ISP offer IPv6? If not, are you using an IPv6 tunnel of some
> kind? If not, then you don't have IPv6 connection to the Internet, so
> the results look normal.
>
>    

I have AT&T so no idea what they do.  They are so slow at times, they 
may still be on IPv3 or something.  lol  I'm just kidding about IPv3.  
Just making a point.

Another thing, I have a old router too.  I'm not sure what role that 
would play in this.  Unless it just allows the packets through without 
any changes, it may be blocking the new stuff.

I guess I'm as ready as I can be right now.

Dale

:-)  :-)

RE: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Pandu Poluan]

-original message-
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm
From: Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com>
Date: 2011-06-09 08:25

>And now I'll try not to talk about Windows on this list again for the
>remainder of the year. ;)

Naaah, is okay... as long as you don't do it excessively :)

Sometimes we Linux-people (-devs, -testers, -contribs, whathaveyou) need the proverbial kick in the pants if something Just Works™ in Windows but a Royal PITA™ in Linux... :þ

Rgds,
--
FdS Pandu E Poluan
~ IT Optimizer ~

Sent from Nokia E72-1

RE: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Pandu Poluan]

-original message-
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm
From: Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com>
Date: 2011-06-10 03:52

>And another bonus is that there are plenty of
funny things we can spell in hexadecimal. ;)

While I'm sure I'll tag the C001:D00D address for my workstation, I'm not sure upper management will appreciate me naming some servers DEAD:BEEF or BAD:D06 or A55:401E ... :-P


Rgds,
--
FdS Pandu E Poluan
~ IT Optimizer ~

Sent from Nokia E72-1

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Joost Roeleveld]

On Friday 10 June 2011 08:52:15 Pandu Poluan wrote:
> -original message-
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm
> From: Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com>
> Date: 2011-06-10 03:52
> 
> >And another bonus is that there are plenty of
> 
> funny things we can spell in hexadecimal. ;)
> 
> While I'm sure I'll tag the C001:D00D address for my workstation, I'm not
> sure upper management will appreciate me naming some servers DEAD:BEEF or
> BAD:D06 or A55:401E ... :-P

If you don't tell them and, when they do notice, tell them that changing the 
IPs is not recommended due to possible issues with the installed software, you 
might get away with that.

Although, why reserve those for servers instead of said management? ;)

--
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Pandu Poluan]

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 14:22, Joost Roeleveld <joost@antarean.org> wrote:
> On Friday 10 June 2011 08:52:15 Pandu Poluan wrote:
>> -original message-
>> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm
>> From: Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com>
>> Date: 2011-06-10 03:52
>>
>> >And another bonus is that there are plenty of
>>
>> funny things we can spell in hexadecimal. ;)
>>
>> While I'm sure I'll tag the C001:D00D address for my workstation, I'm not
>> sure upper management will appreciate me naming some servers DEAD:BEEF or
>> BAD:D06 or A55:401E ... :-P
>
> If you don't tell them and, when they do notice, tell them that changing the
> IPs is not recommended due to possible issues with the installed software, you
> might get away with that.
>
> Although, why reserve those for servers instead of said management? ;)
>

There's playing with fire, and there's playing with FIRE. :D

Rgds,
-- 
Pandu E Poluan
~ IT Optimizer ~
Visit my Blog: http://pepoluan.posterous.com

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Joost Roeleveld]

On Friday 10 June 2011 17:08:40 Pandu Poluan wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 14:22, Joost Roeleveld <joost@antarean.org> wrote:
> > On Friday 10 June 2011 08:52:15 Pandu Poluan wrote:
> >> -original message-
> >> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm
> >> From: Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com>
> >> Date: 2011-06-10 03:52
> >> 
> >> >And another bonus is that there are plenty of
> >> 
> >> funny things we can spell in hexadecimal. ;)
> >> 
> >> While I'm sure I'll tag the C001:D00D address for my workstation, I'm
> >> not sure upper management will appreciate me naming some servers
> >> DEAD:BEEF or BAD:D06 or A55:401E ... :-P
> > 
> > If you don't tell them and, when they do notice, tell them that changing
> > the IPs is not recommended due to possible issues with the installed
> > software, you might get away with that.
> > 
> > Although, why reserve those for servers instead of said management? ;)
> 
> There's playing with fire, and there's playing with FIRE. :D

Considering I regularly play with Nitro mixtures and sharp blades spinning 
around through the air, playing with FIRE isn't too bad :)

Besides, how many managers do you have that actually check the IP-addresses 
the DHCP server gives their machines "randomly"? :)

--
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 15:17 on Friday 10 June 2011, Joost Roeleveld 
did opine thusly:

> On Friday 10 June 2011 17:08:40 Pandu Poluan wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 14:22, Joost Roeleveld <joost@antarean.org> wrote:
> > > On Friday 10 June 2011 08:52:15 Pandu Poluan wrote:
> > >> -original message-
> > >> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm
> > >> From: Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com>
> > >> Date: 2011-06-10 03:52
> > >> 
> > >> >And another bonus is that there are plenty of
> > >> 
> > >> funny things we can spell in hexadecimal. ;)
> > >> 
> > >> While I'm sure I'll tag the C001:D00D address for my workstation, I'm
> > >> not sure upper management will appreciate me naming some servers
> > >> DEAD:BEEF or BAD:D06 or A55:401E ... :-P
> > > 
> > > If you don't tell them and, when they do notice, tell them that
> > > changing the IPs is not recommended due to possible issues with the
> > > installed software, you might get away with that.
> > > 
> > > Although, why reserve those for servers instead of said management? ;)
> > 
> > There's playing with fire, and there's playing with FIRE. :D
> 
> Considering I regularly play with Nitro mixtures and sharp blades spinning
> around through the air, playing with FIRE isn't too bad :)
> 
> Besides, how many managers do you have that actually check the IP-addresses
> the DHCP server gives their machines "randomly"? :)


You have managers that know what an IP address is?

Wow....


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Joost Roeleveld]

On Friday 10 June 2011 16:30:16 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 15:17 on Friday 10 June 2011, Joost
> Roeleveld
> 
> did opine thusly:
> > On Friday 10 June 2011 17:08:40 Pandu Poluan wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 14:22, Joost Roeleveld <joost@antarean.org> 
wrote:
> > > > On Friday 10 June 2011 08:52:15 Pandu Poluan wrote:
> > > >> -original message-
> > > >> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm
> > > >> From: Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com>
> > > >> Date: 2011-06-10 03:52
> > > >> 
> > > >> >And another bonus is that there are plenty of
> > > >> 
> > > >> funny things we can spell in hexadecimal. ;)
> > > >> 
> > > >> While I'm sure I'll tag the C001:D00D address for my
> > > >> workstation, I'm not sure upper management will appreciate me
> > > >> naming some servers DEAD:BEEF or BAD:D06 or A55:401E ... :-P
> > > > 
> > > > Although, why reserve those for servers instead of said
> > > > management? ;)
> > > 
> > > There's playing with fire, and there's playing with FIRE. :D
> > 
> > Considering I regularly play with Nitro mixtures and sharp blades
> > spinning around through the air, playing with FIRE isn't too bad :)
> > 
> > Besides, how many managers do you have that actually check the
> > IP-addresses the DHCP server gives their machines "randomly"? :)
> 
> You have managers that know what an IP address is?
> 
> Wow....

It is mentioned in some magazines on occasion....
Although IP is usually translated to "Intellectual Person" by some and an IP-
address is the address of that person ;)

--
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] IPv6 not ready here; Hmmm

[Paul Hartman]

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> You have managers that know what an IP address is?

iPod, iPhone, iPad... surely iP is something related to that.