= Сообщение: 4681 из 7440 ============================================= IPV6 = От : Tony Langdon 3:633/410 25 Jul 17 09:21:00 Кому : Michiel van der Vlist 25 Jul 17 09:21:00 Тема : Re: The future of IPv4 (was: vanity mode engaged) FGHI : area://IPV6?msgid=3138.fido-ipv6@3:633/410+1ddbc6a6 На : area://IPV6?msgid=2:280/5555+59761474 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: ASCII ================================== Ответ: area://IPV6?msgid=2:280/5555+59786144 ============================================================================== -=> Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
MvV> Just for the record, I would not mind paying a modest amount, such as MvV> EUR 10/year, if that would solve my problems.
I can see a medium term or later scenario where the "Power Pack" option that gives me my static IPv4 address and IPv6 prefix could be the way I'd keep my IPv4 public address, while maintaining my static IPv6 prefix.
TL> Ham radio apps at a class lag behind, very few of them actually TL> support IPv6, so there will be somewhat of a need - use IPv6 where I TL> can, IPv4 where there's no other choice.
MvV> I am old fashioned. I still use the aether when makinh HAM contacts... MvV> :-)
Oh, I do that too, but there is a lot of interconnectivity - net44 (amprnet), IRLP, Echolink, the various digital voice modes (DMR, D-STAR, etc), and things like remote bases - something increasingly required to run HF these days, with the increasing RF noise pollution in urban areas. Almost all of this is IPv4 only. My own remote base actually has the potential to become IPv6 capable - I would need to work on a suitable audio transport medium, probably web based. Control wise, it's already IPv6 capable - I can simply SSH in to control it. ;)
MvV> But of course there is my other hobby: Fidonet. Still plenty of IPv4 MvV> only legacy software around.
And legacy nodes - networked systes can be difficult to migrate. Maybe the solution is to go IPv6 at the application level and have a series of 6in4 tunnels along each route where there's an IPv4 only endpoint. IPv6 capable nodes would simply go native. :) The easiest systems to bring up to spec are the non networked ones like remote bases, followed by those that can leverage partial IPv6 support already out there (e.g. Winlink could go IPv6, because it makes heavy use of standard protocols that already have good, working IPv6 support in the field (SMTP, telnet, etc). And here, IPv6 wouldn't affect the RF side.
We've discussed Fidonet before, and we're probably close to a tipping point. If all nodes that ran IPv6 capable software (e.g. binkd) also ran 6in4 tunnels or even VPNs, where 6in4 wasn't possible, we'd have a lot more IPv6 capable nodes out there. Can also simply restructure FTN networks so that there's good routing available on dual stack nodes, so IPv6 only nodes can get a good feed more easily.
TL> That is a sound plan. I'm not able to go there yet, because of thos TL> whole class of IPv4 apps, and some of those being infrastructure, they TL> face similar migration issues that their creators haven't yet started TL> to address. :(
MvV> Old Man... ;-)
Haha, pot, kettle, black. :P
But in all seriousness, it's frustrating when software authors of new systems don't take IPv6 into account and tke the opportunity to modernise their security and authentication. :(
... Internal consistency is more highly valued than efficiency. --- MultiMail/Win32 v0.49 * Origin: Freeway BBS - freeway.apana.org.au (3:633/410)
