[clug] IPv6

[Paul Wayper]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 01/13/2011 06:43 PM, Steve Walsh wrote:
> On 01/13/2011 05:57 PM, Paul Wayper wrote:
>>
>> And just what do you mean by 'backward compatible'?  Do you mean 'my Linux 2.2
>> machine has to be able to work in an IPv6 world'?  Do you mean 'my IPv6-only
>> website has to be accessible to IPv4-only machines'?  Do you mean 'I shouldn't
>> have to learn new addressing schemes, protocols and networking methods, the
>> old ones should just work by magic'?  Or what?
> 
> Er....There's new protocols with ipv6?
> 
> Stateless vs stateful vs Route Advertisement, etc doesn't take that long to
> understand, once you get into it, but that's the extent of the "new"
> networking methods

Yes, that's basically all I was talking about.

And one should be able to exist in an IPv6 world without having to know what
the packet headers mean, just as I currently exist in a state of blissful
ignorance about most of the bits of the IPv4 header.

However, being able to exist with an IPv6-only machine on the internet and
fetch pages from an IPv4-only host without any network address translation,
proxying or other network shenanigans is, AFAICS, completely impossible.  If
that's what 'backward compatible' means, then I'm afraid Mr Austin is out of luck.

> Most network engineers I know are spending their time convincing the boss they
> need to either upgrade most of their kit, or in come cases, replace it
> outright, as it's not v6 compatible.

Or, as Martijn says, has IPv6 stuff in the box but not enabled - you need an
extra license for that functionality, matey.

> That in itself is not a small task, and often requires a few months in a test
> lab and lots of work in EoI, Tenders, Assessments, etc. Couple that with the
> low number of ISP's that are doing native dual stack v6, and you're fighting
> an uphill battle, as the boss most of the time can't get it at home, so sees
> no benefit in spending the dollars to give the engineers "new toys".

And to the same effect.

Ah well.

Have fun,

Paul
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk0xi8MACgkQu7W0U8VsXYLYYgCeJx6xZ8F3dprWEwgoyyQZq4Sy
8fwAn1ZUGddO0f5PbTUim6/U4rX5VZqJ
=5M4F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----