[colug-432] IPv6: 20 years old, 10% deployed

Rob Funk rfunk at funknet.net
Mon Jan 4 11:22:48 EST 2016

Rick Troth wrote:
> Speaking of tunnels, the resistance to them is surprising. Specifically,
> I hear from several friends that they just don't wanna. (Difficult to
> persuade people to do something they simply dislike. God gave us all
> free will.)

"Try out the future of the internet!" doesn't cut it, huh?  :-)

Eventually there will be more and more services that will be
accessible only by ipv6, but for a long time ipv4 will be considered
necessary for any service to be considered "real".

As I recall, one of the ipv6 tunnel services has a page listing some
things that are accessible only by ipv6, but they're all pretty
gimmicky and none of them have any technical reason not to exist on
ipv4. So I can see why such a list wouldn't be persuasive.

And tunnels specifically are a pain. Why would anyone put up with that
pain if they don't need it and aren't interested in the technical
experimentation? Better to wait for the ISP to enable ipv6 and then
make things work natively. (Bonus points if the OS and ISP and router
people can make it all work invisibly.)

I've also run into problems with important servers having broken ipv6
connectivity. In particular a bunch of Ubuntu update servers have been
working only over ipv4, even though they have ipv6 addresses. I ended
up knocking down the precedence of those ipv6 addresses in
/etc/gai.conf to fix the problem.

> Speaking not of tunnels, when I got native IPv6 at home (having used the
> tunnel before), things were weird. ISP "camps" me on the lone IPv4
> lease, but either they or my router insist on changing the IPv6
> sub-leases with much higher frequency. The effect is that IPv6 native at
> my place is client only, useless for servers.

Any chance it's just the kernel doing the ipv6 address privacy thing
that I ran into earlier in this thread?

More information about the colug-432 mailing list