f Has a ::f1d0:<zone>:<net>:<node> style host address
Me too!
~# host ftn.sysgod.org
ftn.sysgod.org has address 203.206.223.155
ftn.sysgod.org has IPv6 address 2001:4479:cbce:df9b:f1d0:3:712:848
~# host ftn.sysgod.orgAny others?
ftn.sysgod.org has address 203.206.223.155
ftn.sysgod.org has IPv6 address
2001:4479:cbce:df9b:f1d0:3:712:848
~# host ftn.sysgod.org
ftn.sysgod.org has address 203.206.223.155
ftn.sysgod.org has IPv6 address
2001:4479:cbce:df9b:f1d0:3:712:848
Any others?2a00:49e0:10:30:f1d0:2:5005:33
Any others?
2a00:49e0:10:30:f1d0:2:5005:33
Ack.
Any others?
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Evgeny Zyatkov <=-
Any others?
Any others?
How does one go about setting this up?
How does one go about setting this up?
How does one go about setting this up?
Ouch!
Windows XP? 8-)
Hello Ray,
On Thursday July 20 2017 09:41, you wrote to me:
Any others?
How does one go about setting this up?
Windows or Linux?
How does one go about setting this up?
Windows or Linux?
Debian 8 Jessie Linux.
How does one go about setting this up?
Windows or Linux?
Debian 8 Jessie Linux.
Any others?
See the origin line. :D
'Tommi
... he.net certified sage
---
* Origin: IPv6 Point at [2001:470:1f15:cb0:2:221:1:1] (2:221/1.1)
MvdV> Then I can't help you. One of the Linux gurus will have to help you.Windows or Linux?
Debian 8 Jessie Linux.
I'm here, but I never help people who use deb-based systems.
Think of that as of the way how I respect their choice.
Hello Tommi, On Wednesday July 19 2017 19:30, you wrote to me:
Any others?
See the origin line. :D 'Tommi ... he.net certified sage --- *Interesting. But that address does not ping and there is no binkp
Origin: IPv6 Point at [2001:470:1f15:cb0:2:221:1:1] (2:221/1.1)
server responding. Plus that the list is one of IPv6 capable
nodes. So I don't know what to do with it.
BTW, I too have a binkp capable point, but I can't give it a fixed address because I move it around. If there is a way of only
configuring the host part as fixed and have the prefix set by
SLAAC, I would like to know...
Windows or Linux?
I'm here, but I never help people who use deb-based systems. ThinkDebian 8 Jessie Linux.
of that as of the way how I respect their choice.
I'm here, but I never help people who use deb-based systems.
Think of that as of the way how I respect their choice.
Debian 8 Jessie Linux.
On my opensuse system I just entered the extra address in the configuration, and that was it. But that wouldn't work for debian...
On my opensuse system I just entered the extra address in the
configuration, and that was it. But that wouldn't work for debian...
Why shouldn't it work?
Debian 8 Jessie Linux.
Then I can't help you. One of the Linux gurus will have to help you.
Alexey? Wilfred? Markus? Kees? Nick?
I'm here, but I never help people who use deb-based systems.
Think of that as of the way how I respect their choice.
Tommi Koivula wrote to Michiel van der Vlist <=-
Take a look at softether vpn. With it you can connect home and get ipv6 address in your home lan. :)
Origin: IPv6 Point at [2001:470:1f15:cb0:2:221:1:1] (2:221/1.1)
Interesting. But that address does not ping and there is no binkp
server responding. Plus that the list is one of IPv6 capable
nodes. So I don't know what to do with it.
Hey! It is a point. :)
But anyway, it is my main workstation at home. It normally is on and should answer by binkp.
BTW, I too have a binkp capable point, but I can't give it a
fixed address because I move it around. If there is a way of only
configuring the host part as fixed and have the prefix set by
SLAAC, I would like to know...
Take a look at softether vpn. With it you can connect home and get
ipv6 address in your home lan. :)
On my opensuse system I just entered the extra address in the
configuration, and that was it. But that wouldn't work for
debian...
Why shouldn't it work?Because debian hasn't got the same configuration utils as opensuse. ;)
Tommi Koivula wrote to Michiel van der Vlist <=-
Take a look at softether vpn. With it you can connect home and get ipv6
address in your home lan. :)
That would work, and I took a look at softether, very neat VPN solution. Now I have to rebuild my VPNs, and I'm torn between using my router (which I did with the previous one), or setting up softether. :)
BTW, I too have a binkp capable point, but I can't give it a fixed
address because I move it around. If there is a way of only
configuring the host part as fixed and have the prefix set by SLAAC, I would like to know...
Hey! It is a point. :)
But anyway, it is my main workstation at home. It normally is on and
should answer by binkp.
It works now:
00:43 [3876] creating a poll for 2:221/1.1@fidonet (`d' flavour)
00:43 [3876] clientmgr started
+ 00:43 [2652] call to 2:221/1.1@fidonet
00:43 [2652] trying 2001:470:1f15:cb0:2:221:1:1 [2001:470:1f15:cb0:2:221:1:1]...
00:43 [2652] connected
+ 00:43 [2652] outgoing session with 2001:470:1f15:cb0:2:221:1:1:24554
Tommi Koivula wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
I've used it for a long time to connect home from my laptops. Also I
can connect to my dad's computer for support. It is even installed in
my business computer. :)
The nice thing is that it creates an _ethernet_ bridge so ipv6 is of course supported.
BTW, I too have a binkp capable point, but I can't give it a
fixed address because I move it around. If there is a way of only
configuring the host part as fixed and have the prefix set by
SLAAC, I would like to know...
Take a look at softether vpn. With it you can connect home and get
ipv6 address in your home lan. :)
01:43:13 [7892] incoming from 2001:1c02:1100:d700:f1d0:2:280:5555
(4902) 01:43:13 [3696] incoming session with ipv6.dynamic.ziggo.nl
[2001:1c02:1100:d700:f1d0:2:280:5555]
01:43:13 [3696] SYS Blijf Tonijn
01:43:13 [3696] ZYZ Michiel van der Vlist
The ziggo reverse is still bad. :)
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Tommi Koivula <=-
But you do need a public IPv4 address for that do you?
Presently I have native IPv6 with dual stack. But the writing is on the wall, it isn't forever. My ISP's policy used to be that only new customers get DS-Lite, but it seems they are now also converting
existing customers. As long as my present cable modem keeps working I
am probably safe, but if it releases its supply of smoke and goes to Modem Walhalla, that may change.
So... with every change to my system I ask "will it still work if I
loose my public IPv4 address"?
Take a look at softether vpn. With it you can connect home and
get ipv6 address in your home lan. :)
My long term dual stack future is assured at this stage,
my ISP has a good supply of IPv4 and is geek friendly.
I suspect if they start moving customers to DS-Lite, they will still
have an option for those who want to keep their public IPv4 at a
modest extra cost.
So... with every change to my system I ask "will it still work
if I loose my public IPv4 address"?
That sounds like a good question.
Take a look at softether vpn. With it you can connect home and
get ipv6 address in your home lan. :)
No, it listens at ipv6 address also. It has even dyndns service of its own.
Yes! I wouldn't recommend it for you if that wasn't the case. :)
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
My long term dual stack future is assured at this stage,
For how long? 10 years? After that it probobly won't matter any more.
my ISP has a good supply of IPv4 and is geek friendly.
Then let's hope it won't be the life time of your ISP that is the deciding factor. Here the small ones are almost all eaten by the big ones. And then it becomes less geek friendly.
My choice is limited. My present ISP has a quasy monopoly in my situation. They offer a good deal regarding price speed and content but they are not geek friendly. They are not geek hostile either though.
ADSL is not really in option here with te 70+ year old copper in the street. It can not compete with the coax. And no fiber in sight...
I suspect if they start moving customers to DS-Lite, they will still
have an option for those who want to keep their public IPv4 at a
modest extra cost.
That would be nice. In the longer run, you may run into the problem of hardware manufacturers gradually dropping support for IPv4. But then again, by the time that happens, it probably won't matter any more.
So... with every change to my system I ask "will it still work
if I loose my public IPv4 address"?
That sounds like a good question.
I should rephrase that. s/if/when/ Because seeing the signs on the
wall, I expect it will be a matter of "when", not "if".
My long term dual stack future is assured at this stage,
For how long? 10 years? After that it probobly won't matter any
more.
Given the low penetration of IPv6 here, 10 years is not out of the question (I'd rate it better than 50/50).
[..]My choice is limited. My present ISP has a quasy monopoly in my
situation. They offer a good deal regarding price speed and
Here, the situation is different. Few ISPs actually own access infrastructure, and with the new national network rolling out, pretty
much all will be dependent on this network to reach their customers.
Still a good question. :) Not one I have to consider for quite a
while, though I have proven that as long as I have access to a public
IPv4 from _somewhere_, a tunnel will work, and I'm sure that will hold even if I have to run my own NAT on the far end of the VPN.
I have been running IPv6 via 6to4 tunnels for over half a decade. Technically the reverse, IPv4 via a 4to6 tunnel should work just as
well. If need be, I will go that way. But that is plan C. Plan A is to have dual stack until my provider forces me to DS-Lite. My hope is
that when that happens, I no longer need a public IPv4 address. Plan B
is to switch provider.
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
I am a bit more optimistic. I expect that onc IPv6 becomes the dominant protocol, it will go very quick. In Belgium IPv6 already is the
dominant protocol.
Here, the situation is different. Few ISPs actually own access infrastructure, and with the new national network rolling out, pretty
much all will be dependent on this network to reach their customers.
I think that is a good development. Here the owner(s) of the old copper originally designed for POTS are by law required to allow competitors
to make use of the infrastructure. But oddly enough that does not apply to the coax cable originally designed for broadcasting TV. The owner of the coax has a monopoly on it.
Still a good question. :) Not one I have to consider for quite a
while, though I have proven that as long as I have access to a public
IPv4 from _somewhere_, a tunnel will work, and I'm sure that will hold even if I have to run my own NAT on the far end of the VPN.
So you are planning on supporting incoming IPv4 for as long as you can. If need be at extra cost.
I am going the other way. I plan on fasing out IPv4 as soon as
practical. Dual stack and DS-Lite are transition mechanisms. One can
not switch from IPv4 to IPv6 overnight, because that would require all
of the word wide internet to throw the switch at the same time. That is not going to work, so we need a period of overlap where both IPv4 and IPv6 are supported. But I am not a member of the "more is better club". Supporting two protocols in parallel increases the chance of bugs and
the effort required to trace and fix them. Also I would gladly get rid
of NAT. The sooner I can get rid of IPv4 the better I say. I encourage the use of IPv6. But when the IPv6 train really gets on steam, the next step would be to discourage the use of IPv4.
I have been running IPv6 via 6to4 tunnels for over half a decade. Technically the reverse, IPv4 via a 4to6 tunnel should work just as
well. If need be, I will go that way. But that is plan C. Plan A is to have dual stack until my provider forces me to DS-Lite. My hope is that when that happens, I no longer need a public IPv4 address. Plan B is to switch provider.
I am exploring the options...
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
s/6to4/6in4/
s/4to6/4in6/
So you are planning on supporting incoming IPv4 for as long as
you can. If need be at extra cost.
Ham radio apps at a class lag behind, very few of them actually
support IPv6, so there will be somewhat of a need - use IPv6 where I
can, IPv4 where there's no other choice.
[..]I am going the other way. I plan on fasing out IPv4 as soon as
practical. Dual stack and DS-Lite are transition mechanisms. One
use of IPv6. But when the IPv6 train really gets on steam, the
next step would be to discourage the use of IPv4.
That is a sound plan. I'm not able to go there yet, because of thos
whole class of IPv4 apps, and some of those being infrastructure, they face similar migration issues that their creators haven't yet started
to address. :(
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Just for the record, I would not mind paying a modest amount, such as
EUR 10/year, if that would solve my problems.
Ham radio apps at a class lag behind, very few of them actually
support IPv6, so there will be somewhat of a need - use IPv6 where I
can, IPv4 where there's no other choice.
I am old fashioned. I still use the aether when makinh HAM contacts... :-)
But of course there is my other hobby: Fidonet. Still plenty of IPv4
only legacy software around.
That is a sound plan. I'm not able to go there yet, because of thos
whole class of IPv4 apps, and some of those being infrastructure, they face similar migration issues that their creators haven't yet started
to address. :(
Old Man... ;-)
MvdV> I think that is a good development. Here the owner(s) of the old copper
MvdV> originally designed for POTS are by law required to allow competitors to
MvdV> make use of the infrastructure. But oddly enough that does not apply to
MvdV> the coax cable originally designed for broadcasting TV. The owner of the coax has a monopoly on it.
There is quite a difference between letting competitors using fixed ciruits and competitors mutiplexing on the same signal carrier.
Kees van Eeten wrote to Michiel van der Vlist <=-
There is quite a difference between letting competitors using fixed ciruits
and competitors mutiplexing on the same signal carrier.
There is quite a difference between letting competitors using fixed ciruits and competitors mutiplexing on the same signal carrier.
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.
I am old fashioned. I still use the aether when making HAM
contacts... :-)
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.
;)
But of course there is my other hobby: Fidonet. Still plenty of
IPv4 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.
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.
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. :(
There is quite a difference between letting competitors using fixed
ciruits and competitors mutiplexing on the same signal carrier.
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
My ISP does not offer that on consumer accounts. Static addresses are only offered om bussines accounts.
I am old fashioned. I still use the aether when making HAM
contacts... :-)
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.
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.
;)
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.
But of course there is my other hobby: Fidonet. Still plenty of
IPv4 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.
Hmmm...
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. :-(
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.
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.
Frustrating indeed. :-(
Most ISPs here don't offer static addresses for consumers either, but
mine oes.
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. ;)
Belgium is world leader in IPv6 adoption with 51%. It does not
show in Fidonet. :-(
Yeah you guys should be leading the world.
There's certainly a selection. We have coverage here, both myself and
my NC have IPv6. :)
Frustrating indeed. :-(
Yep, this is not new stuff now, it should be pedestrian.
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Here the DSL providers issue static addresses. The cable providers
issue dynamic addresses. But they are quasy static. My IPv4 address is linked to the MAC address of my router. If the MAC address changes, the IPv4 address changes. If I change the MAC address back before the lease expires, I get back the old address. IPv6 is still unchartered
territory. Couple of month ago we had an unscheduled power outage. When the power came back on, my IPv4 address had not changed. But I got a different IPv6 prefix. Both have been stable since then.
Coming to think of it, ... that legacy allocation 44.0.0.0/8 reserved
for HAM radio is a mixed blessing. It gives the HAMs plenty of IPv4 address space. More than they will ever need. A /28 for every HAM.
Active or not. A luxury. But... it also makes them lazy. In Dutch we
call this "remmende voorsprong". The success of the French Minitel was
a main reason why Fidonet never really got off the ground in France.
The same mechanism is slowing down IPv6 penetration in the HAM world.
:-(
Yeah you guys should be leading the world.
Watch your words. We the Dutch are not "you guys" in Belgium. That's
just as bad as calling a Kiwi an Aussie. ;-)
There's certainly a selection. We have coverage here, both myself and
my NC have IPv6. :)
Net 280 is also well covered. 12 systems, 5 of which (including the
host) are IPv6 capable. 42% IPv6 penetration. ;-)
Frustrating indeed. :-(
Yep, this is not new stuff now, it should be pedestrian.
Pedestrian?
Yeah you guys should be leading the world.
Watch your words. We the Dutch are not "you guys" in Belgium. That's
just as bad as calling a Kiwi an Aussie. ;-)
Hahaha, that would be paying them a compliment. :P
David Drummond wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Hahaha, that would be paying them a compliment. :P
Are you sure? I have lived in Australia for 37 years now - I still hold
a current Kiwi passport, the only one I hold - yes I know, I cannot
stand for a government role :)
Hmm, OK. It's provider dependent here, but most, regardess of access medium issue dymanic IPv4s by default. And most don't issue IPv6 at
all, think there's still only the one or two ISPs offering IPv6 here.
Yep, this is not new stuff now, it should be pedestrian.
Pedestrian?
Yes, as in nothing fancy, should be as ordinary as walking down the street. :)
And BTW, DSL circuits are not 100% isolated from each other either. Crosstalk is a serious problem with DSL.
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Unfortunately your country is not the only where the ISPs are tantalizingly slow in introducing IPv6. With Belgium as an exception,
it is not much better here in Europe. :-(
Oddly enough the US and Canada are leading in IPv6 adoption. While
ARIN, the RIR serving Northern America was the last to run out of IPv4.
Two years ago. APNIC, the RIR serving your area ran out six years ago
and RIPE five years ago. One would expect the latter two to be
leading...
| Sysop: | Nelgin |
|---|---|
| Location: | Plano, TX |
| Users: | 512 |
| Nodes: | 10 (1 / 9) |
| Uptime: | 158:29:30 |
| Calls: | 8,281 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 15,511 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (29K bytes) |
| Messages: | 926,827 |