[colug-432] tunnelled IPv6 -- was: Looking for info on Columbus

[Richard Troth]

I'm up ... routing works.

Turns out I was being overly conservative with the /48 space and was
man-handling the interfaces too much.  I was using /64 addresses on
hosts at home and yet putting them on that /48 subnet.  The stack
seemed to get easily confused.  (This is all Linux at this point,
various SLES 10, Kubuntu, and Fedora, even an old SuSE 8.)  With
forwarding enabled, there was no need for me to assign an address in
the subnet on the tunnel, nor a tunnel-ish address on the ethernet
side.  It just works.

I have one or two V6 (quad A) records in the DNS which are working.

Haven't tried any IPv6 from the smart phone.  Gotta wonder when the
cellular providers will cut over.  I understand that they are more
anxious to go 6 than other industries.

I do mainframe Linux for a living and have development S/390 systems
of my own (not only my employer's systems).  So I hope to get IPv6
connectivity to a couple of my personal Linux-s390 penguins.  (One at
home via Hercules, another on a real mainframe elsewhere.)

-- R;   <><





On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 13:39, Richard Troth <rmt at casita.net> wrote:
> That's really a great question.  First goal might be just "beat the
> Christmas rush".  But seriously ...
>
> I have been wanting to get into IPv6, as I said, for at least a half
> decade.  This would be out of geeky curiosity if nothing else.  "They
> say" that IPv6 is about more than just address constrain relief.
> "They say", for example, that IPsec is built-in with v6.  (This leads
> to a question for followup in reply to Russ's reply.)
>
> I also have my own domain.  That is, I have dedicated servers with
> static IP addresses, in addition to the residential IPv4 address.
> (Others may have their own domain and use DynDNS or something like it.
>  This is a step further.  More complicated; more expensive; blah
> blah.)  IPv6 matters more to me because of this.
>
> Reminiscing ... I was on the internet before it was commercially
> available.  The world was different then.  So ... enumerated reasons
> ...
>
>  * get into v6 sooner, hoping to knock-out problems early, rather than wait
>  * also, get my publicly visible servers ready for v6
>  * evaluate the security implications of IPv6 and consider it as an
> alternative to VPN
>  * nail down my own subnet (am anxious to get past the RFC 1597 hack, frankly)
>  * enjoy, for a limited time, an IP space with less consumerist presence
>
> And yeah, NAT addresses do collide.  There are 256 class C subnets
> under 192.168.x.x, and if you're at a big enough company you *will*
> bump into something used by your employer.  (Does it matter?  Did for
> me.)  Then there's the stuff about taking your laptop over to your
> buddies house.  His WiFi animal doles out something under 192.168.1.x
> just like yours does.  Does it matter?  Maybe.
>
> -- Rick;   <><
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 12:44, Scott Merrill <skippy at skippy.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Richard Troth <rmt at casita.net> wrote:
>>>> What is your problem with a tunnelled ipv6 connection?  They
>>>> are pretty trivial to set up, and I've not noticed any
>>>> 'lagginess' with the ones I've used?
>>>
>>> Russ has been guiding me off-list.  He demanded "a full report to the
>>> colug ML".  (For those who know Russ, I should not have to insert
>>> smileys.)
>>>
>>> Summary:  I'm on SixXS.  One /64 tunnel.  One /48 subnet.  No changes
>>> to my DNS.  No systems routed yet.  But no charge!
>>>
>>> If you want to play IPv6 at this time...
>>
>> Can you elaborate your primary (and secondary?) goals for playing the ipv6 game?
>>
>> What are the benefits to the home user to jumping through these hoops
>> to get ipv6?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> colug-432 mailing list
>> colug-432 at colug.net
>> http://lists.colug.net/mailman/listinfo/colug-432
>>
>