Am Freitag, 10. Juni 2022, um 13:51:01 Uhr schrieb Grant Taylor:

> On 6/10/22 3:58 AM, Marco Moock wrote:
> > - The "new" addresses will cause many problems: All routers,
> > operating systems and firewalls MUST be updated.
>
> Nope. That's not true.
>
> Your client computer has no idea if my 192.168.1.0 is the zeroth
> address in 192.168.1.0/24 or the middle of the 192.168.0.0/23
> network. You don't have to change anything.
>
> The things that will need to be updated are things that are directly
> attached to the network using zeroth addresses.
>
> So the very vast majority of things will not need to be updated to
> support zeroth addresses.

This only applies to the net addresses they want to make usable. But
think about making subnets of 127.0.0.0/8 public routable?
Currently the entire net is localhost, so addresses within that net
MUST NOT be transmitted to another host. This must be changed on EVERY
router, firewall, operating system etc.
If not, these new addresses can't be used in environments where routers
are blocking it.

> > The chance is really high that most of them won't be changed, so
> > the new addresses, e.g. from the current localhost area, can't be
> > properly used in many networks.
>
> It's only a locally significant problem. Things that want to use the
> zeroth address may need to update. Things that aren't local don't
> need to care.

See the post about localhost above. If I run a public server on the
new global address 127.123.2.1, then this can't be used of somebody
runs an operating system, a firewall or a router that doesn't know
about the change. Win XP, Vista and 7 users can't access it, many
computers in home networks with older routers can't access it.

> > True, but this must be implemented in EVERY device that uses IPv4
> > to function. This will take years to be done and many devices can't
> > be changed, like old operating systems, routers etc.
>
> Nope. (See above.)
>
> > True, and these people must be stopped doing so.
>
> Good luck convincing them.

For some I managed it, others are resistent to all suggestions.

> We should also start hosting services on IPv6. I'm sick and tired of
> people discouraging running mail servers on IPv6.

Full ack. I will further or sooner host my own sendmail server. Then I
can make it reachable via IPv6. Sadly, my current mail provider doesn't
support IPv6 in MX.
My own services (squid/danted/ftpd) are already IPv6 capable.
> > There are still very bad companies like SONY that sell (junk)
> > products (PlayStation 4) that can't use IPv6 at all.
>
> horse ... water ...

What does that mean?
PS: I am not an English native speaker.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 07:56:27 +0200
Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote:
> > horse ... water ...
>
> What does that mean?
> PS: I am not an English native speaker.

A proverb : "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink"

On 6/10/22 11:56 PM, Marco Moock wrote:
> This only applies to the net addresses they want to make usable.

Yes.

> But think about making subnets of 127.0.0.0/8 public routable?

There are many facets to the IPv4 Cleanup Project as I understand it.

I think that trying to use any part of the 127/8 network across the
global Internet is as effective as spitting into a hurricane.

But that's /global/.

I do think that it's possible, if not likely, that companies (e.g.
Google) can update all of their equipment such that they can use parts
of the 127/8 network other than 127.0.0.0/24 internally the same way
that they can currently use RFC 1918 / 7793 addresses. Meaning private
passing through a CGNAT solution.

Your Windows XP won't care that the 192.0.2.127 it thinks it's talking
to is actually being translated to 127.2.0.192 inside of $COMPANY's data
center.

> Currently the entire net is localhost, so addresses within that net
> MUST NOT be transmitted to another host.

There's some very important minutia. Notably "currently". One of the
facets of the IPv4 Cleanup Project is to re-define the localhost network
so that it's just 127.0.0.0/24 instead of the larger 127.0.0.0/8 (24 vs
8 respectively).

That re-definition will mean that 127.127.127.127 would not be
localhost. As such it would not be subject to the localhost restrictions.

> This must be changed on EVERY router, firewall, operating system etc.

No. Not /every/ router / firewall / $DEVICE.

It /only/ needs to be changed in the devices that will see the formerly
restricted address; e.g. 127.127.127.127.

There is a *HUGE* difference in Google / Facebook / et al. needing to
update /their/ equipment to support the redefined networks as opposed to
the entire world needing to do so.

There's also the fact that only the devices that will participate in
such exchanges need to be updated. So devices that will never
participate in communications with 127.127.127.127 don't need to be
updated. Meaning my 20 year old HP LaserJet 4M+ can keep working just
fine and the lack of update won't prevent Google / Facebook / et al.
from using 127.127.127.127 in their network.

> If not, these new addresses can't be used in environments where routers
> are blocking it.

/me points to the LaserJet 4M+ above and says "so"

Not all environments /need/ to be updated. Only the environments that
will see / pass traffic to the effected IPs need to be updated.

> See the post about localhost above. If I run a public server on the
> new global address 127.123.2.1, then this can't be used of somebody
> runs an operating system, a firewall or a router that doesn't know
> about the change. Win XP, Vista and 7 users can't access it, many
> computers in home networks with older routers can't access it.

See my spitting into a hurricane comment above.

> For some I managed it, others are resistent to all suggestions.

And that is their choice.

They may, or may not, change their mind at some point in the future.

> Full ack. I will further or sooner host my own sendmail server. Then I
> can make it reachable via IPv6.

:-)

> Sadly, my current mail provider doesn't support IPv6 in MX.

:-(

> My own services (squid/danted/ftpd) are already IPv6 capable.

:-)

> What does that mean?

Spiros B. answered before I could.

> PS: I am not an English native speaker.

I had no idea. Your English is better than some people that I know are
native English speakers. I tip my hat to you.

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 6/10/22 11:54 PM, Marco Moock wrote:
> Have you also changed all computers there that they don't treat the
> BC address as BC?

/32s and /31s are a unique critter. They don't actually have a notion
of a broadcast nor network. There's an RFC that redefines the /31 for a
point to point network. /32s behave very similarly.

The /32 can't easily be used directly without something else to support
it. This is often accomplished by putting the /32 on a loopback or
dummy interface (as a single IP) and creating a route to it via a
different link-net IP. Thus you can use all IPs in a block. }:-)

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 6/10/22 10:51 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
> I disagree. I certainly will not be changing over to IPV6.

You are of course entitled to your own opinion.

> After working with IPV4 practically since it was deployed I'm just not
> willing to learn or even blindly use another protocol.

That's your choice.

My opinion is that it's a short sighted choice.

But my opinion of your choice doesn't lessen the fact that it's your choice.

> I also see no good reason for every damned electronic device to be
> internet-connected in the first place,

The addressing scheme is largely independent of the number of devices
using it.

I can use near 4 billion addresses on IPv4 or 400 addresses on IPv6.
The only restriction is if the addressing space is big enough for all of
the devices that want to be addressed.

I've been known to say that I don't want the Bic pen in my pocket to
have an IPv6 address.

> which seems to be at least part of the driving force for this.

No, I don't think so.

I know that there are more people getting cell phones which they want to
have internet access than there are IPv4 addresses available.

These are /new/ connections, not new devices replacing old devices thus
re-using an old connection.

There is a HUGE demand for Internet of Things or so called smart
devices. They simply add to the number of things that want internet
connectivity.

But the desire for those new phones / IoT devices does not dictate that
the Bic pen in my pocket needs it's own IPv6 address.

The desire for the new phones / IoT devices does mean that there are
more devices that want to get on the Internet than the current IPv4
address space can provide.

> (In general if a product has "smart" in its name or description I
> want nothing to do with it.)

I think some smart things can be dumbed down enough to be tolerable.

But I'm suspicious of them.

> Fortunately, as I stated previously, the "transition" is going so
> slowly the chances are I won't have to deal with it in my lifetime
> and what happens after that is not my concern.

~chuckle~

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 6/10/22 11:54 PM, Marco Moock wrote:
> Have you also changed all computers there that they don't treat the
> BC address as BC?

/32s and /31s are a unique critter. They don't actually have a notion
of a broadcast nor network. There's an RFC that redefines the /31 for a
point to point network. /32s behave very similarly.

The /32 can't easily be used directly without something else to support
it. This is often accomplished by putting the /32 on a loopback or
dummy interface (as a single IP) and creating a route to it via a
different link-net IP. Thus you can use all IPs in a block. }:-)

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 6/10/22 11:56 PM, Marco Moock wrote:
> This only applies to the net addresses they want to make usable.

Yes.

> But think about making subnets of 127.0.0.0/8 public routable?

There are many facets to the IPv4 Cleanup Project as I understand it.

I think that trying to use any part of the 127/8 network across the
global Internet is as effective as spitting into a hurricane.

But that's /global/.

I do think that it's possible, if not likely, that companies (e.g.
Google) can update all of their equipment such that they can use parts
of the 127/8 network other than 127.0.0.0/24 internally the same way
that they can currently use RFC 1918 / 7793 addresses. Meaning private
passing through a CGNAT solution.

Your Windows XP won't care that the 192.0.2.127 it thinks it's talking
to is actually being translated to 127.2.0.192 inside of $COMPANY's data
center.

> Currently the entire net is localhost, so addresses within that net
> MUST NOT be transmitted to another host.

There's some very important minutia. Notably "currently". One of the
facets of the IPv4 Cleanup Project is to re-define the localhost network
so that it's just 127.0.0.0/24 instead of the larger 127.0.0.0/8 (24 vs
8 respectively).

That re-definition will mean that 127.127.127.127 would not be
localhost. As such it would not be subject to the localhost restrictions.

> This must be changed on EVERY router, firewall, operating system etc.

No. Not /every/ router / firewall / $DEVICE.

It /only/ needs to be changed in the devices that will see the formerly
restricted address; e.g. 127.127.127.127.

There is a *HUGE* difference in Google / Facebook / et al. needing to
update /their/ equipment to support the redefined networks as opposed to
the entire world needing to do so.

There's also the fact that only the devices that will participate in
such exchanges need to be updated. So devices that will never
participate in communications with 127.127.127.127 don't need to be
updated. Meaning my 20 year old HP LaserJet 4M+ can keep working just
fine and the lack of update won't prevent Google / Facebook / et al.
from using 127.127.127.127 in their network.

> If not, these new addresses can't be used in environments where routers
> are blocking it.

/me points to the LaserJet 4M+ above and says "so"

Not all environments /need/ to be updated. Only the environments that
will see / pass traffic to the effected IPs need to be updated.

> See the post about localhost above. If I run a public server on the
> new global address 127.123.2.1, then this can't be used of somebody
> runs an operating system, a firewall or a router that doesn't know
> about the change. Win XP, Vista and 7 users can't access it, many
> computers in home networks with older routers can't access it.

See my spitting into a hurricane comment above.

> For some I managed it, others are resistent to all suggestions.

And that is their choice.

They may, or may not, change their mind at some point in the future.

> Full ack. I will further or sooner host my own sendmail server. Then I
> can make it reachable via IPv6.

:-)

> Sadly, my current mail provider doesn't support IPv6 in MX.

:-(

> My own services (squid/danted/ftpd) are already IPv6 capable.

:-)

> What does that mean?

Spiros B. answered before I could.

> PS: I am not an English native speaker.

I had no idea. Your English is better than some people that I know are
native English speakers. I tip my hat to you.

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

Sorry for the duplication.

My news server didn't want to post during it's maintenance last night
when I typed the replies. So I saved them for this morning. But it
looks like two of them did get posted despite errors to the contrary.

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 13:51:01 -0600
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
> On 6/10/22 3:58 AM, Marco Moock wrote:
> > We must start/continue transition to IPv6 ASAP.
>
> Agreed.

For someone who doesn't know much about these issues , could someone explain
what kind of stuff a person would have to be involved in in order for that
person to have to take explicit steps for a transition as opposed to things
just working for whatever combination of hardware and software they're using ?
In particular , does someone who is not a networking professional need to
take some explicit steps ?

> We should also start hosting services on IPv6. I'm sick and tired of
> people discouraging running mail servers on IPv6.

On what grounds do they discourage it ?

> > There are still very bad companies like SONY that sell (junk) products
> > (PlayStation 4) that can't use IPv6 at all.
>
> horse ... water ...

What would Sony need to do in order to add support ?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4_system_software :
The PlayStation 4 system software is the updatable firmware and operating
system of the PlayStation 4. The operating system is Orbis OS, based on
FreeBSD 9.

I'm guessing that FreeBSD 9 does have support.

--
A good compiler can translate an 8K BASIC program in two or three
minutes.
http://www.atariarchives.org/mlb/chapter7.php

Marco Moock wrote:

> schrieb Andy Burns:
>
>> my ISP gives my a /29 subnet, but rather than assigning it
>> that way and getting 6 usable addresses plus a useless subnet addr
>> and broadcast addr, I assign all 8 addrs as /32 and get two more
>> usable IPs out of it ...
>
> Have you also changed all computers there that they don't treat the BC
> address as BC?

The first IP is auto-assigned to the WAN interface of the router by the ISP, the
remaining seven I manually assign as secondary IPs on the same interface, they
are used for port forwarding to computers on the router's LAN or DMZ interfaces,
so nothing would be aware it was using a broadcast addr.

On 2022-06-11, Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote:
> Ok, can you calculate 2³²?
> This is the maximum amount of possible IPv4 addresses. Even this isn't
> enough and many areas of that space can't be used for global
> addressing. This is the reason for IPv6 and there is no way around it.

There are ways around it, such as carrier-grade NAT. There won't be
an actual need for IPV6 in my lifetime and as I've said what happens
after that is not my concern. I plan to keep IPV6 disabled here
indefinitely.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 10/06/2022 11:51, SH wrote:
> On 10/06/2022 11:00, Marco Moock wrote:
>> Am Mittwoch, 08. Juni 2022, um 22:45:30 Uhr schrieb SH:
>>
>>> On a IPv4 network, devices use the configured IP address of the DNS.
>>> In my case I have a pi Hole so all DNS queries all go to teh Pi Hole.
>>>
>>> When running on IPv6, mobile phones over Wifi seemed able to get
>>> their DNS results from a DNS OUTSIDE my LAn despite there being a DNS
>>> on teh LAN itself.
>>>
>>> This was despite the Pi Hole also set up for DNS over IPv6.
>>>
>>> the computers on the LAN used the internal DNS.
>>>
>>> I ended up having to disable IPv6 support in the router to ensure teh
>>> Pi Hole DNS was used by *ALL* devices.
>>
>> This is the worst idea.
>> You need to make sure that your computers get the IPv6 DNS resolver by
>> DHCPv6 (if your routers runs a DHCPv6) and via the IPv6 Router
>> Advertisement.
>>
>
> i seem to recall that when setting up Pi hole, I put in a IPv4 address
> 192.168.0.29 and there was no option to add a IPv6 address EVEN though
> there was a toggle option for enable IPv6 support in Pi Hole.

It does now. As well as being able to choose among half-a-dozen
pre-defined IPv6 DNS providers such as Cloudflare you can also specify
two IPv6 addresses for your own choice of upstream IPv6 DNS server.

> In the Vodafone router I have a toggle option for IPv6 support. I can
> also enter in the IPv4 address of my preferred DNS but there is no box
> for entering an IPv6 address for my preferred DNS.....
>
>
> Hmmm what next?

Stop using the Vodafone router for DHCP/DNS and use the Pi Hole instead.

--
Bruce Horrocks
Surrey, England

Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 13:51:01 -0600
> Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>> On 6/10/22 3:58 AM, Marco Moock wrote:
>> > We must start/continue transition to IPv6 ASAP.
>>
>> Agreed.
>
> For someone who doesn't know much about these issues , could someone explain
> what kind of stuff a person would have to be involved in in order for that
> person to have to take explicit steps for a transition as opposed to things
> just working for whatever combination of hardware and software they're using ?
> In particular , does someone who is not a networking professional need to
> take some explicit steps ?

Well I just wasted another hour of my life trying to enable it for
my home internet connection (mobile broadband). It turns out that
yes, I am now using a modem that supports IPv6 and IPv4/IPv6 over
PPP. But whenever I enable it, the modem never connects. I guessed
that this means my ISP/telco doesn't support it. But no, although
as usual they're to polite to have an official page about it they
announced IPv4/v6 for mobile in 2016*. But it doesn't work, and
there's only so far to dig with that because there aren't many
cofiguration changes involved. Plus the error condition is "hmm,
it's been a couple of minutes and it's _still_ 'connecting', guess
that doesn't work either" (an all too familiar error condition, I
might add).

On the other hand I know most households here in Australia with
wired internet are now using modems/routers with IPv6 enabled,
because that's the default for most/all the new hardware they got
when the 'National Broadband Network' rolled out in Australia. So
they didn't need to take any explicit steps.

* https://www.computerworld.com/article/3521032/telstra-kicks-off-next-stage-of-ipv6-shift-for-mobile-network.html
https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/3vy5n749

P.S.
Without an actual usage case for IPv6, seeing as I'm not
encountering any IPv6-only servers that I want to talk to, I won't
look into tunelling. Just in case someone here is eager to suggest
it.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
> On 6/10/22 11:56 PM, Marco Moock wrote:
>> This only applies to the net addresses they want to make usable.
>
> Yes.
>
>> But think about making subnets of 127.0.0.0/8 public routable?
>
> There are many facets to the IPv4 Cleanup Project as I understand it.
>
> I think that trying to use any part of the 127/8 network across the
> global Internet is as effective as spitting into a hurricane.
>
> But that's /global/.
>
> I do think that it's possible, if not likely, that companies (e.g.
> Google) can update all of their equipment such that they can use parts
> of the 127/8 network other than 127.0.0.0/24 internally the same way
> that they can currently use RFC 1918 / 7793 addresses. Meaning private
> passing through a CGNAT solution.
>
> Your Windows XP won't care that the 192.0.2.127 it thinks it's talking
> to is actually being translated to 127.2.0.192 inside of $COMPANY's data
> center.

The project's GitHub pages seem to make it pretty clear that they
_are_ talking about global scope for all this. Their stated aim is
"adding 419 million new IPs to the world". They more or less
suggest that the battle is already won on internal networks:

""These addresses will never work globally"
They won't unless we try. They already work fine with the patchsets
we have on Linux, FreeBSD, and macOS. These addresses work on a
local LAN, in tunnels, and via the two major routing daemons we've
patched, and nearly every IoT OS we've tried."
https://github.com/schoen/unicast-extensions/blob/master/FAQ.md

Reading between the lines, I think the fact that this proposal is
coming from a co-founder of Let's Encrypt is a hint. This is all
about servers. Public servers are still considered to need an
IPv4 address, and as such IPv4 addresses have become (slightly)
valuable since the limit of their finite capacity was reached. If
you add more IPv4 addresses, you decrease the overall value, saving
some people money.

Running a server on 127.2.0.192 wouldn't be all that nice, but in
the real world maybe it would still work better for some services
than running IPv6-only. So if in some situation IPv4 is just too
expensive (presumably something like a large array of servers
talking to old IoT devices), then using a dodgy-but-cheap 'new'
IPv4 address might be a reasonable move. Devices that don't support
IPv6 (think mobile broadband connected, as an example that I'm
personally aware of), but don't get confused about global 127.* IP
addresses are then able to connect, whereas otherwise they
couldn't.

So if people are smart about these new global IPv4 addresses and
only use them when they expect specific compatible clients to be
connecting to associated servers, maybe it could work. The cost of
normal IPv4 addresses might also go down if some IoT operators
switch to the new, cheaper, addresses leaving more available for
operators of general-purpose servers.

But if a normal website server like wikipedia.org ever resolves to
127.2.0.192, or my ISP ever assigns an IP address like that to my
home internet connection, _that_ would be very bad state of
affairs. The question is therefore whether website operators and
ISPs can be trusted not to use the new global addresses
inappropriately?

I suspect that anyone who stands to save money if this proposal
went ahead would be particularly inclined to answer "yes".
Personally I'm not sure, especially about website operators.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 12 Jun 2022 11:50:31 +1000
not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) wrote:
> Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 13:51:01 -0600
> > Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
> >> On 6/10/22 3:58 AM, Marco Moock wrote:
> >> > We must start/continue transition to IPv6 ASAP.
> >>
> >> Agreed.
> >
> > For someone who doesn't know much about these issues , could someone explain
> > what kind of stuff a person would have to be involved in in order for that
> > person to have to take explicit steps for a transition as opposed to things
> > just working for whatever combination of hardware and software they're using ?
> > In particular , does someone who is not a networking professional need to
> > take some explicit steps ?
>
> Well I just wasted another hour of my life trying to enable it for
> my home internet connection (mobile broadband). It turns out that
> yes, I am now using a modem that supports IPv6 and IPv4/IPv6 over
> PPP. But whenever I enable it, the modem never connects. I guessed
> that this means my ISP/telco doesn't support it. But no, although
> as usual they're to polite to have an official page about it they
> announced IPv4/v6 for mobile in 2016*. But it doesn't work, and
> there's only so far to dig with that because there aren't many
> cofiguration changes involved. Plus the error condition is "hmm,
> it's been a couple of minutes and it's _still_ 'connecting', guess
> that doesn't work either" (an all too familiar error condition, I
> might add).

So it should have worked just by ticking a box or something but you never
actually managed to make it work.

> On the other hand I know most households here in Australia with
> wired internet are now using modems/routers with IPv6 enabled,
> because that's the default for most/all the new hardware they got
> when the 'National Broadband Network' rolled out in Australia. So
> they didn't need to take any explicit steps.

Yes , that would have been my guess for all "sufficiently technologically
advanced" countries. I don't know if my router has IPv6 enabled and I'm
not inclined to find out because I resent the fact that its interface
requires a browser with javascript. But my guess is that IPv6 is enabled.

As a general comment , for people who post on usenet through googlegroups ,
their header includes a NNTP-Posting-Host field and in that I see sometimes
an IPv6 address.

--
vlaho.ninja/prog

not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) writes:
> Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>> There are many facets to the IPv4 Cleanup Project as I understand it.
>>
>> I think that trying to use any part of the 127/8 network across the
>> global Internet is as effective as spitting into a hurricane.
>>
>> But that's /global/.
>>
>> I do think that it's possible, if not likely, that companies (e.g.
>> Google) can update all of their equipment such that they can use
>> parts of the 127/8 network other than 127.0.0.0/24 internally the
>> same way that they can currently use RFC 1918 / 7793 addresses.
>> Meaning private passing through a CGNAT solution.
>>
>> Your Windows XP won't care that the 192.0.2.127 it thinks it's
>> talking to is actually being translated to 127.2.0.192 inside of
>> $COMPANY's data center.
>
> The project's GitHub pages seem to make it pretty clear that they
> _are_ talking about global scope for all this. Their stated aim is
> "adding 419 million new IPs to the world". They more or less
> suggest that the battle is already won on internal networks:
>
> ""These addresses will never work globally"
> They won't unless we try. They already work fine with the patchsets
> we have on Linux, FreeBSD, and macOS. These addresses work on a
> local LAN, in tunnels, and via the two major routing daemons we've
> patched, and nearly every IoT OS we've tried."
> https://github.com/schoen/unicast-extensions/blob/master/FAQ.md

That’s not a very promising answer. They still haven’t got their work
fully merged into the main Unix kernels and I can find no hint anywhere
about how close Windows support is.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

Am Samstag, 11. Juni 2022, um 23:10:12 Uhr schrieb Bruce Horrocks:

> Stop using the Vodafone router for DHCP/DNS and use the Pi Hole
> instead.

For that it must be possible to switch off DHCPv6 on the router. Also
the IPv6 router advertisement must be changed at the router, because it
must come from that router. The only way is a router that offers to
change the settings.

Am Sonntag, 12. Juni 2022, um 12:29:23 Uhr schrieb Computer Nerd Kev:

> So if people are smart about these new global IPv4 addresses and
> only use them when they expect specific compatible clients to be
> connecting to associated servers, maybe it could work. The cost of
> normal IPv4 addresses might also go down if some IoT operators
> switch to the new, cheaper, addresses leaving more available for
> operators of general-purpose servers.

Best would be if they offer IPv6 and require that for function. The
people wanting to use these devices need an ISP that offers IPv6.
> But if a normal website server like wikipedia.org ever resolves to
> 127.2.0.192, or my ISP ever assigns an IP address like that to my
> home internet connection, _that_ would be very bad state of
> affairs. The question is therefore whether website operators and
> ISPs can be trusted not to use the new global addresses
> inappropriately?

No, because there is no reason for that. If the "new" subnets are
global scope (if the attempt is successful), ISP will use them like
global addresses - regardless of some networks that have problems with
them because of old software/hardware.

Am Sonntag, 12. Juni 2022, um 09:19:14 Uhr schrieb Richard Kettlewell:

> That’s not a very promising answer. They still haven’t got their work
> fully merged into the main Unix kernels and I can find no hint
> anywhere about how close Windows support is.

Also think about routers and firewalls. They also need to update all
their firmware to make it work.

Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>I disagree. I certainly will not be changing over to IPV6. After working with
>IPV4 practically since it was deployed I'm just not willing to learn or even
>blindly use another protocol. I also see no good reason for every damned
>electronic device to be internet-connected in the first place, which seems
>to be at least part of the driving force for this. (In general if a product
>has "smart" in its name or description I want nothing to do with it.)

IoT has nothing to do with IPv6, in spite of a lot of marketing about it.
IPv6 is about everybody who wants one getting an address block in a world
that is much larger than just the US.

>Fortunately, as I stated previously, the "transition" is going so slowly the
>chances are I won't have to deal with it in my lifetime and what happens
>after that is not my concern.

The transition is already complete in most of Asia. They can't get IPv4
addresses because there haven't been any available for years, so they use
IPv6. The transition is only going slowly in the US where address space
is plentiful. Most of the rest of the world is not that way, and if you
want to talk to the rest of the would you likely would want IPv6.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
>What would Sony need to do in order to add support ?
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4_system_software :
> The PlayStation 4 system software is the updatable firmware and operating
> system of the PlayStation 4. The operating system is Orbis OS, based on
> FreeBSD 9.
>
>I'm guessing that FreeBSD 9 does have support.

It does indeed, so I am suspecting that it would not be a huge issue for
Sony unless they have a lot of hardcoded junk in place. And if they DO
have a lot of hardcoded junk, this would seem as good a time as any to
fix it. Would they sell more units by doing so? Maybe not.

IPv6 compatibility has been required for US government procurement for
over a decade now. So it has become pretty much standard in software,
even though most people in the US choose not to use it.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article <20220612112346.1364e1cd@ryz>, Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote:
>Am Samstag, 11. Juni 2022, um 23:10:12 Uhr schrieb Bruce Horrocks:
>
>> Stop using the Vodafone router for DHCP/DNS and use the Pi Hole
>> instead.
>
>For that it must be possible to switch off DHCPv6 on the router. Also
>the IPv6 router advertisement must be changed at the router, because it
>must come from that router. The only way is a router that offers to
>change the settings.

Why is turning off the DHCPv6 server on the router a problem? Just run
the DHCPv6 server on the pi hole. And why is the router advertisement an
issue? You should have a static block of addresses assigned to the router,
and the DHCPv6 server just assigns to individual machines within that block.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Am Sonntag, 12. Juni 2022, um 16:17:15 Uhr schrieb Scott Dorsey:

> Why is turning off the DHCPv6 server on the router a problem? Just
> run the DHCPv6 server on the pi hole. And why is the router
> advertisement an issue? You should have a static block of addresses
> assigned to the router, and the DHCPv6 server just assigns to
> individual machines within that block. --scott

Most ISPs don't provide

Am Sonntag, 12. Juni 2022, um 16:17:15 Uhr schrieb Scott Dorsey:

> Why is turning off the DHCPv6 server on the router a problem? Just
> run the DHCPv6 server on the pi hole. And why is the router
> advertisement an issue? You should have a static block of addresses
> assigned to the router, and the DHCPv6 server just assigns to
> individual machines within that block.

Most ISPs don't give their customers a static IPv6 net.
The Router Advertisement must come from the router itself, this can't
be done by another machine. If the RA includes DNS resolvers, these
must be changed at the router. Many cheap "home" routers don't support
changing that setting.

Am Samstag, 11. Juni 2022, um 20:17:09 Uhr schrieb Roger Blake:

> There are ways around it, such as carrier-grade NAT. There won't be
> an actual need for IPV6 in my lifetime and as I've said what happens
> after that is not my concern. I plan to keep IPV6 disabled here
> indefinitely.

CG-NAT is no way around it, you can't run any servers, you can't use
SIP at all. CG-NAT and DS-Lite is just really nasty.