5 ms·
IPv6 Support Required for All IP-Capable Nodes
- fpp 15y agoThe support for IP6 is now mandatory vs the previous optional IETF RFC and has now also the status of a best practice. Talk to your ISP if they still don't support it.
- mindslight 15y agoUnless IPv6 will make consumer ISPs once again willing to give static addresses, there's no point waiting for them. # apt-get install miredo (Alternatively, if you already have a static IPv4 address and want a static IPv6 address, setup 6to4. This however is about ten times as hard, and will thus take about half an hour.)
- StavrosK 15y agoWhat the hell? It worked! How did it work?
- mindslight 15y agoHahaha. Public tunnel servers at major interconnection points. Having a packet stop off at a translation server isn't so terrible when it'd be traveling a similar path regardless. Play with ip6 a bit, and you'll gain a much different perspective of what is and is not important about it (sixxs.net will even give you a static ip6 address if you don't have a static ip4 address, but their tunnel servers can be quite out of the way).
- lloeki 15y ago> sixxs.net will even give you a static ip6 address actually, a /64 initially, and a full /48 later down the road IIRC. (here the steps are 1. get a sixxs account, 2. apt-get install aiccu, 3. put credentials in /etc/aiccu.conf)
- zokier 15y agohe.net deserves a mention too. rumor has that it is bit less sucky than sixxs.
- justincormack 15y agoWorking fell for me for a year or so. Just chose it as they have local connections.
- StavrosK 15y agoThanks! Can you explain what the advantages are, briefly? For me, the major advantage would be easy NAT traversal, but I don't know if that can be done. I'm a bit confused by the whole thing, does this mean I now need to install a firewall on the machines behind the NAT? Do the services (e.g. SSH) need to also listen on the ipv6 adapter?
- oasisbob 15y agoTeredo is a pretty clever technology, but there are a lot of downsides vs native v6: http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2011-04/teredo.html http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2011-04/teredo.html
- rollypolly 15y agoThere's lots of reasons to dislike Comcast (ehumSOPAehum) but their IPv6 support is outstanding.
- steve-howard 15y agoI noticed about a month ago that U-Verse in my area started serving me IPv6. Ironically because a web server's IPv6 site turned out to be incredibly slow, and pinging the server showed more colons than I've come to expect in my IP addresses. The fact that they managed to do this without my noticing any interruption is commendable. I checked a few months earlier and didn't have IPv6, so I know the transition was fairly recent.
- obtu 15y agoIn other words: IP implies IPv6. Don't say it speaks IP if what it supports is just IPv4.
- runningdogx 15y agoMaybe this will light a fire under the registrars and DNS hosting companies, because some of them still don't support IPv6 glue records (for registrars) or AAAA records (for DNS hosters). http://www.sixxs.net/faq/dns/?faq=ipv6glue http://www.sixxs.net/faq/dns/?faq=ipv6glue
- zokier 15y agoDoes IETF have any way of enforcing such policy?
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- dsr_ 15y agoNo. (Yes. Peer pressure. But an RFC which turns out to be infeasible to implement or wildly speculative or what-have-you doesn't matter, because there won't be any peers pointing out that you ought to do it this way...)
- hkleppe 15y agoNot really. But you can tell your ISP it is not RFC compliant, I will tell mine.
- alanh 15y agoNot a lot to see here — basically everyone is exhorted to treat IPv6 and v4 compatibility as mandatory. Interestingly, however, they basically said it sucks to see consumer devices being sold without IPv6, and that there is little market pressure to change the situation because obviously consumers don’t know or care or see it as their responsibility.
- gioele 15y agoHyperlinked HTML version: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6540 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6540