[opensuse] how many folks running suse 11 are heavily into IPv6?
(side note -- i'm going to be asking bunches of silly questions as i'm preparing to eventually take the CLP 11 practicum on my way to getting my CNI. and *that* should scare you. :-) i can see from the list of issues covered in the novell CLP 11 practicum that IPv6 is part of that. so how many people here are using IPv6 on a serious basis in their IT infrastructure? not just dabbling but having it as a fundamental part of their networking already? and why? did you really get to a point where IPv4 simply couldn't do the job anymore? rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry. Web page: http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday ======================================================================== -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 02:19 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
(side note -- i'm going to be asking bunches of silly questions as i'm preparing to eventually take the CLP 11 practicum on my way to getting my CNI. and *that* should scare you. :-)
i can see from the list of issues covered in the novell CLP 11 practicum that IPv6 is part of that. so how many people here are using IPv6 on a serious basis in their IT infrastructure? not just dabbling but having it as a fundamental part of their networking already? and why? did you really get to a point where IPv4 simply couldn't do the job anymore?
I don't expect you'll inviting into a mail-bomb. It's probably too early to find people "heavily" in to IPv6. On the web-frontend, most work seems to be done (servers, browsers) Same for dhcp, dns, ssh, net-tools like iptables, ping, ipsec. But there is still much left to be done: -Database (mysql might support it in 6.x ^-) -voip (Asterisk was (!) supposed to support it in 1.6.2) -NFS (experimental in version 4 afaicr) -Torrent supports its, but there aren't many v6-capable clients Graphical (web) config tools are still expecting four fields of three digits separated by dots. No clue about Samba, ldap, iscsi via IPv6 So advocating V6: yes, heavily using: not yet. hw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-Database (mysql might support it in 6.x ^-)
You should use PostgreSQL anyway. :) It has supported IPv6 for awhile.
No clue about Samba,
Works in recent versions.
ldap
OpenLDAP has supported it for a long time. Support is very robust. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 02:19 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
(side note -- i'm going to be asking bunches of silly questions as i'm preparing to eventually take the CLP 11 practicum on my way to getting my CNI. and *that* should scare you. :-)
i can see from the list of issues covered in the novell CLP 11 practicum that IPv6 is part of that. so how many people here are using IPv6 on a serious basis in their IT infrastructure? not just dabbling but having it as a fundamental part of their networking already? and why? did you really get to a point where IPv4 simply couldn't do the job anymore?
rday --
======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Why not just ask another guy on Campus? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009, Mike McMullin wrote:
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 02:19 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
(side note -- i'm going to be asking bunches of silly questions as i'm preparing to eventually take the CLP 11 practicum on my way to getting my CNI. and *that* should scare you. :-)
i can see from the list of issues covered in the novell CLP 11 practicum that IPv6 is part of that. so how many people here are using IPv6 on a serious basis in their IT infrastructure? not just dabbling but having it as a fundamental part of their networking already? and why? did you really get to a point where IPv4 simply couldn't do the job anymore?
Why not just ask another guy on Campus?
because while i may live in waterloo, i am in no way connected with the university. or was there another point you were trying to make? rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry. Web page: http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday ======================================================================== -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
i can see from the list of issues covered in the novell CLP 11
Good. Those kind of things should be ahead of the curve.
practicum that IPv6 is part of that. so how many people here are using IPv6 on a serious basis in their IT infrastructure?
+1
already? and why?
It is easier to deploy it in a gradual strategic way than to scramble when you suddenly have to support it. It is MUCH easier to configure than IPv4. Netmasks: Gone. Multicast: Just Works. Auto-Config: Just works. No addressing issues for point-to-point links. And it is faster for really big local transfers and consumes less router resources on the WAN. Why not use IPv6? It is just a better protocol.
did you really get to a point where IPv4 simply couldn't do the job anymore?
There is just no reason not to begin phasing out IPv4. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday 17 October 2009 11:18:36 Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
There is just no reason not to begin phasing out IPv4.
I have one: I don't want to buy new router, and in my case phasing out would mean new, a more expensive router that will support both protocols and be smart to know that only local network is IPv6. I can imagine what big network users have to invest to switch. -- Regards, Rajko OpenSUSE Wiki Team: http://en.opensuse.org/Wiki_Team People of openSUSE: http://en.opensuse.org/People_of_openSUSE/About -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 12:22 -0500, Rajko M. wrote:
There is just no reason not to begin phasing out IPv4. I have one: I don't want to buy new router, and in my case phasing out would mean new, a more expensive router that will support both protocols and be smart to know
On Saturday 17 October 2009 11:18:36 Adam Tauno Williams wrote: that only local network is IPv6. I can imagine what big network users have to invest to switch.
Sort of, the cost is pretty much buried. Anything even remotely new support IPv6. Anything so old that it does not would never survive a security audit. Even several year old Linksys consumer-junk can be flashed with OpenWRT, and thus support IPv6. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
i can see from the list of issues covered in the novell CLP 11
Good. Those kind of things should be ahead of the curve.
practicum that IPv6 is part of that. so how many people here are using IPv6 on a serious basis in their IT infrastructure?
+1
already? and why?
It is easier to deploy it in a gradual strategic way than to scramble when you suddenly have to support it.
It is MUCH easier to configure than IPv4. Netmasks: Gone. Multicast: Just Works. Auto-Config: Just works. No addressing issues for point-to-point links. And it is faster for really big local transfers and consumes less router resources on the WAN.
Why not use IPv6? It is just a better protocol.
did you really get to a point where IPv4 simply couldn't do the job anymore?
There is just no reason not to begin phasing out IPv4.
QWERTY effect strikes again... The earliest I remember talk about IPv6 was about 15 years ago, and mainly in the context of a solution to a shortage of address space with IPv4. When NAT became perceived as a basic solution to the latter problem interest waned, I suspect this is because those with existing and working networking infrastructures were a bit unwilling to replace them with something which (if it worked as expected) did much the same as they already had at a perceived considerable commitment of resources. Many would be wary of a mixed IP protocol approach (adds something else to go wrong in unpredictable ways, especially in environments which already have a mixture of protocols). Most IT technical teams are under resourced for what non-technical management expect them to perform, and there is, at least among the better technical managers a general unwillingness to commit their people to support additional responsibilities without the required additional resources (which are usually not forthcoming). Many admins adopt an 'if it aint broke dont fix it approach'. Therefore for something to be adopted it needs give a perceived significant benefit against any cost, (or an advocate which tells people to adopt X by date y or else ). - -- ============================================================================== I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone. Bjarne Stroustrup ============================================================================== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkra5g0ACgkQasN0sSnLmgKPHwCfQzo9ok4YYbJMVGaejjBnYxK1 R7QAoM16DjyjoBm8I+acTSw6yTPWMIld =MXoW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, 2009-10-18 at 10:55 +0100, G T Smith wrote:
i can see from the list of issues covered in the novell CLP 11 It is MUCH easier to configure than IPv4. Netmasks: Gone. Multicast: Just Works. Auto-Config: Just works. No addressing issues for point-to-point links. And it is faster for really big local transfers and consumes less router resources on the WAN. Why not use IPv6? It is just a better protocol. did you really get to a point where IPv4 simply couldn't do the job anymore? There is just no reason not to begin phasing out IPv4. QWERTY effect strikes again... The earliest I remember talk about IPv6 was about 15 years ago, and
Adam Tauno Williams wrote: mainly in the context of a solution to a shortage of address space with IPv4. When NAT became perceived as a basic solution to the latter problem interest waned,
NAT is not a solution. It just creates more problems. Look at the whole space of NAT traversal strategies. This is the problem with IPv4: it is long overdue for being taken out to the sheds, it is one hack on top of another (NAT, multicast, all the chicanery of point-to-point connections, tunneling). And people say "my IPv4 network is simple and works great." It isn't, and it doesn't. Pain you are accustomed to doesn't cease to be pain just because you are accustomed to it.
Many would be wary of a mixed IP protocol approach (adds something else to go wrong in unpredictable ways, especially in environments which already have a mixture of protocols). Most IT technical teams are under resourced for what non-technical management expect them to perform, and there is, at least among the better technical managers a general unwillingness to commit their people to support additional responsibilities without the required additional resources (which are usually not forthcoming).
None of which is an argument against IPv6. That is just an organizational issue. The above situation applies to many things both IT related and not.
Many admins adopt an 'if it aint broke dont fix it approach'. Therefore for something to be adopted it needs give a perceived significant benefit against any cost, (or an advocate which tells people to adopt X by date y or else ).
This is a failure of those familiar with IPv6. The argument has been about address space, which is a small portion of IPv6. IPv6: * reduces significantly router congestion (it can be routed much more efficiently, at higher rates given the same computation resources). * tunneling is a natural part of the protocol. Microsoft has even started requiring IPv6 in its new services like Direct-Access for supporting mobile workers. It is very sad that Microsoft is going to be way ahead of the curve on this and drive the superior IPv6 protocol while UNIX/LINUX communities continue to snub it and argue that there is no benefit. * is faster for local transfers (gone are MTU/MRU & fragmentation issues) * multi-cast is built into the protocol (much like tunneling) * addressing on Point-to-Point connections is a non-issue * in many cases devices can self-configure * mobility is supported for persistent connections for roving devices * no more crazy netmask nonsense. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
This is a failure of those familiar with IPv6. The argument has been about address space, which is a small portion of IPv6.
IPv6: [snip] * is faster for local transfers (gone are MTU/MRU & fragmentation issues)
How does IPv6 do that - isn't MTU dependent on the ethernet packet size and router support for the same? /Per -- Per Jessen, Zürich (5.1°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Per Jessen wrote:
Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
]
* is faster for local transfers (gone are MTU/MRU & fragmentation issues)
How does IPv6 do that - isn't MTU dependent on the ethernet packet size and router support for the same?
When was the last time you saw anything that didn't support 1500 byte MTU? Years ago, smaller sizes were common because the communications medium had higher error rates, which made smaller packets more desirable. As I understand it, path MTU discovery is used to set the MTU, to the largest that will pass without fragmentation. In IPv6, fragmentation may only be done by the originating host. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
James Knott wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
]
* is faster for local transfers (gone are MTU/MRU & fragmentation issues)
How does IPv6 do that - isn't MTU dependent on the ethernet packet size and router support for the same?
When was the last time you saw anything that didn't support 1500 byte MTU?
This morning :-) I have an IPv4 setup which uses IPIP tunnels on the back of LVS, and those tunnels reduce my MTU to 1440. Still, how does IPv6 avoid MTU/MRU & fragmentation issues? PMTU is surely still required. /Per -- Per Jessen, Zürich (4.9°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Per Jessen wrote:
James Knott wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
]
* is faster for local transfers (gone are MTU/MRU & fragmentation issues)
How does IPv6 do that - isn't MTU dependent on the ethernet packet size and router support for the same?
When was the last time you saw anything that didn't support 1500 byte MTU?
This morning :-) I have an IPv4 setup which uses IPIP tunnels on the back of LVS, and those tunnels reduce my MTU to 1440.
Still, how does IPv6 avoid MTU/MRU & fragmentation issues? PMTU is surely still required.
...But isn't fragmentation a good thing? And isn't it good to be able to specify how much fragmentation to allow? How, otherwise, does one avoid a 50MB file transfer, for instance, locking up a 54Mbps wifi network for 10 seconds? Is provision made for such situations? If so, how does it differ from MTU? Or does it defer all packet-splitting to the lower levels? Are there any bottom-level protocols that don't split transfers into packets? totally ignorant of ipv6, and not very knowledgable about _any_ networking, John Perry -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
John E. Perry wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
James Knott wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
]
* is faster for local transfers (gone are MTU/MRU & fragmentation issues)
How does IPv6 do that - isn't MTU dependent on the ethernet packet size and router support for the same?
When was the last time you saw anything that didn't support 1500 byte MTU?
This morning :-) I have an IPv4 setup which uses IPIP tunnels on the back of LVS, and those tunnels reduce my MTU to 1440.
Still, how does IPv6 avoid MTU/MRU & fragmentation issues? PMTU is surely still required.
...But isn't fragmentation a good thing? And isn't it good to be able to specify how much fragmentation to allow? How, otherwise, does one avoid a 50MB file transfer, for instance, locking up a 54Mbps wifi network for 10 seconds? Is provision made for such situations? If so, how does it differ from MTU? Or does it defer all packet-splitting to the lower levels? Are there any bottom-level protocols that don't split transfers into packets?
totally ignorant of ipv6, and not very knowledgable about _any_ networking,
John Perry
A large file, such as that 50 MB one you mentioned, is already split into small chunks by the transmitter, typically at 1500 bytes or so. The purpose of fragmentation was so that links with different size MTU could work together. So, for example, a 1500 byte packet would be split into 3 pieces, so that it could travel on a link with only a 576 byte MTU. Further fragmentation may take place if an even smaller MTU is encountered. All the pieces are then reassembled at the destination. With IPv6, path MTU discovery is used, which will determine the maximum MTU that can pass along the entire path, thus avoiding fragmentation along the way. The big problem with fragmentation is the work load it places on the routers along the path. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Per Jessen wrote:
James Knott wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
]
* is faster for local transfers (gone are MTU/MRU & fragmentation issues)
How does IPv6 do that - isn't MTU dependent on the ethernet packet size and router support for the same?
When was the last time you saw anything that didn't support 1500 byte MTU?
This morning :-) I have an IPv4 setup which uses IPIP tunnels on the back of LVS, and those tunnels reduce my MTU to 1440.
Still, how does IPv6 avoid MTU/MRU & fragmentation issues? PMTU is surely still required.
IPv6 uses path MTU discovery to determine the maximum size. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_mtu_discovery -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
G T Smith wrote:
The earliest I remember talk about IPv6 was about 15 years ago, and mainly in the context of a solution to a shortage of address space with IPv4. When NAT became perceived as a basic solution to the latter problem interest waned, I suspect this is because those with existing and working networking infrastructures were a bit unwilling to replace them with something which (if it worked as expected) did much the same as they already had at a perceived considerable commitment of resources.
I suggest you read a good text on IPv6 to see just what it can do. It does many things far better than IPv4. Greater address range is just a small part of what it does. Also, IPv4 addresses are running out, even with RFC1918 NAT. Because U.S companies grabbed so many address blocks, much of the world, particularly Asia, is starving for address space. However, even reallocating some of those addresses will not solve the problem, as there are many, many devices that want an IP address, beyond just computers. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Some OSes, (eg OpenBSD) run dual stacks handling both IP4 and IP6. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Some OSes, (eg OpenBSD) run dual stacks handling both IP4 and IP6. Linux does that too. I've experimented with IPv6 on OpenSUSE, but never connected with it to anything outside of my local network. The support for IPv6 has long been in the operating systems, even Windows supports it, but in North America there's little demand for it. This compares with Asia, where it's becoming common. However, I seem to recall a news item recently, where the U.S. government will be demanding it. As for
david feustel wrote: those apps & servers, mentioned in another note, they'll eventually have to update or die. The sooner they support IPv6, the better. The first I heard of IPv6 was in an article in Byte magazine about 15 years ago. As for interoperability, there are methods of crossing between the IPv4 & IPv6 worlds, in addition to dual stacks, including a range of IPv6 addresses that map directly to IPv4. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 James Knott wrote:
G T Smith wrote:
The earliest I remember talk about IPv6 was about 15 years ago, and mainly in the context of a solution to a shortage of address space with IPv4. When NAT became perceived as a basic solution to the latter problem interest waned, I suspect this is because those with existing and working networking infrastructures were a bit unwilling to replace them with something which (if it worked as expected) did much the same as they already had at a perceived considerable commitment of resources.
I suggest you read a good text on IPv6 to see just what it can do. It does many things far better than IPv4. Greater address range is just a small part of what it does. Also, IPv4 addresses are running out, even with RFC1918 NAT. Because U.S companies grabbed so many address blocks, much of the world, particularly Asia, is starving for address space. However, even reallocating some of those addresses will not solve the problem, as there are many, many devices that want an IP address, beyond just computers.
Not commenting on what IPv6 can or cannot do, it is a better protocol for most purposes. More on the institutional, organisational, barriers that seem to have hindered it adoption, and the perceptions that reinforce these. - -- ============================================================================== I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone. Bjarne Stroustrup ============================================================================== -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkrddecACgkQasN0sSnLmgK0FgCg5lyiA1oOGigX2qfoKKqocHPS QdkAoIVEjdEru32W2Iwa6h9Llz3XBpRp =NZCx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
i can see from the list of issues covered in the novell CLP 11
Good. Those kind of things should be ahead of the curve.
practicum that IPv6 is part of that. so how many people here are using IPv6 on a serious basis in their IT infrastructure?
+1
already? and why?
It is easier to deploy it in a gradual strategic way than to scramble when you suddenly have to support it.
+1.
did you really get to a point where IPv4 simply couldn't do the job anymore?
There is just no reason not to begin phasing out IPv4.
What if your internal/local/RFC1918 network is all IPv4 and works very well? Is there a reason to start phasing that out? I'm not so sure, it's certainly not easy coming up with a business case. In particular if you've still got IPv4-only applications (mysql, asterisk as somebody already mentioned). Wrt to the external network, it would be highly desirable to begin a slow transition to IPv6, but my main worry here is that my upstream provider does not have the skills required to support me/my company. There are not very many IPv6 deployments on xDSL yet. /Per -- Per Jessen, Zürich (5.4°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Per Jessen wrote:
Wrt to the external network, it would be highly desirable to begin a slow transition to IPv6, but my main worry here is that my upstream provider does not have the skills required to support me/my company. There are not very many IPv6 deployments on xDSL yet.
If you need an IPv6 connection to the net, there are service providers that will assign you some IPv6 addresses and then you tunnel IPv6 to them via IPv4. This way, you get most of the benefits of IPv6, while using only IPv4 from your ISP. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
James Knott wrote:
Per Jessen wrote:
Wrt to the external network, it would be highly desirable to begin a slow transition to IPv6, but my main worry here is that my upstream provider does not have the skills required to support me/my company. There are not very many IPv6 deployments on xDSL yet.
If you need an IPv6 connection to the net, there are service providers that will assign you some IPv6 addresses and then you tunnel IPv6 to them via IPv4. This way, you get most of the benefits of IPv6, while using only IPv4 from your ISP.
Good point. Yep, I have also looked into that, and we have one or two in Switzerland, but I think we'd only use those during the initial "getting your feet wet" period. /Per -- Per Jessen, Zürich (4.9°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, 2009-10-18 at 14:14 +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
It is easier to deploy it in a gradual strategic way than to scramble when you suddenly have to support it.
+1.
did you really get to a point where IPv4 simply couldn't do the job anymore?
There is just no reason not to begin phasing out IPv4.
What if your internal/local/RFC1918 network is all IPv4 and works very well? Is there a reason to start phasing that out? I'm not so sure, it's certainly not easy coming up with a business case. In particular if you've still got IPv4-only applications (mysql, asterisk as somebody already mentioned).
If your local network works Ok with IPv4, and are not expecting higher costs for your current addres, and not expecting to reach url's that might be on IPv6 only addresses, there's no need to worry...
Wrt to the external network, it would be highly desirable to begin a slow transition to IPv6, but my main worry here is that my upstream provider does not have the skills required to support me/my company. There are not very many IPv6 deployments on xDSL yet.
It's very unlikely that you're served by an dsl provider willing to offer IPv6, true. Hence you can turn to an external provider, like http://www.tunnelbroker.net/ their tunnels are free, as in "free beer" If you ever change from access-provider to another, you can take your tunnel, and your /64 address space with you. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Hans Witvliet wrote:
Wrt to the external network, it would be highly desirable to begin a slow transition to IPv6, but my main worry here is that my upstream provider does not have the skills required to support me/my company. There are not very many IPv6 deployments on xDSL yet.
It's very unlikely that you're served by an dsl provider willing to offer IPv6, true. Hence you can turn to an external provider, like http://www.tunnelbroker.net/ their tunnels are free, as in "free beer" If you ever change from access-provider to another, you can take your tunnel, and your /64 address space with you.
AFAICT, most tunnel brokers offer the service for development and testing purposes, it's not a suitable solution for a production setup. /Per -- Per Jessen, Zürich (4.1°C) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
participants (10)
-
Adam Tauno Williams -
david feustel -
G T Smith -
Hans Witvliet -
James Knott -
John E. Perry -
Mike McMullin -
Per Jessen -
Rajko M. -
Robert P. J. Day