= Сообщение: 4688 из 7440 ============================================= IPV6 = От : Michiel van der Vlist 2:280/5555 26 Jul 17 11:06:33 Кому : Tony Langdon 26 Jul 17 11:06:33 Тема : The future of IPv4 (was: vanity mode engaged) FGHI : area://IPV6?msgid=2:280/5555+59786144 На : area://IPV6?msgid=3138.fido-ipv6@3:633/410+1ddbc6a6 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: CP850 ================================== Ответ: area://IPV6?msgid=3147.fido-ipv6@3:633/410+1dde75e4 ============================================================================== Hello Tony,
On Tuesday July 25 2017 09:21, you wrote to me:
TL> I can see a medium term or later scenario where the "Power Pack" TL> option that gives me my static IPv4 address and IPv6 prefix could be TL> the way I'd keep my IPv4 public address, while maintaining my static TL> IPv6 prefix.
My ISP does not offer that on consumer accounts. Static addresses are only offered om bussines accounts.
MvV>> I am old fashioned. I still use the aether when making HAM MvV>> contacts... :-)
TL> Oh, I do that too, but there is a lot of interconnectivity - net44 TL> (amprnet), IRLP, Echolink, the various digital voice modes (DMR, TL> D-STAR, etc), and things like remote bases - something increasingly TL> required to run HF these days, with the increasing RF noise pollution TL> in urban areas.
For me the fun is running my own stuff at home. Noise pollution is stil bearable here. If I can no longer do HF from home, I will just stop doing HF. I don't use echolink or similar stuff either.
TL> Almost all of this is IPv4 only. My own remote base TL> actually has the potential to become IPv6 capable - I would need to TL> work on a suitable audio transport medium, probably web based. Control TL> wise, it's already IPv6 capable - I can simply SSH in to control it. TL> ;)
Good for you! ;-)
Twenty five years ago I was the caretaker of the local 2 m repeater. PI3PYR. No internet connection. Everything over the air. ;-)
That was a long time ago. I have lost intetest in repereaters.
MvV>> But of course there is my other hobby: Fidonet. Still plenty of MvV>> IPv4 only legacy software around.
TL> And legacy nodes - networked systes can be difficult to migrate. TL> Maybe the solution is to go IPv6 at the application level and have a TL> series of 6in4 tunnels along each route where there's an IPv4 only TL> endpoint.
Hmmm...
TL> We've discussed Fidonet before, and we're probably close to a tipping TL> point. If all nodes that ran IPv6 capable software (e.g. binkd) also TL> ran 6in4 tunnels or even VPNs, where 6in4 wasn't possible, we'd have a TL> lot more IPv6 capable nodes out there.
Indeed, there could be a lot more. Unfortunately many sysops do not seem to be interested at all. Many are still in denial. We don't need IPv6, evrything works without it...
Belgium is world leader in IPv6 adoption with 51%. It does not show in Fidonet. :-(
TL> Can also simply restructure FTN networks so that there's good routing TL> available on dual stack nodes, so IPv6 only nodes can get a good feed TL> more easily.
There are no true IPv6 only nodes yet and there probably won't be any for a long time to come. All present IPv6 capable nodes can still make outgoing connects over IPv4. I think we already are past the tipping point. There are enough IPv6 capable nodes that can act as echomail hubs. Running an IPv6 node should be doable.
MvV>> Old Man... ;-)
TL> Haha, pot, kettle, black. :P
TL> But in all seriousness, it's frustrating when software authors of new TL> systems don't take IPv6 into account and tke the opportunity to TL> modernise their security and authentication. :(
