How to make IPv6 work with Cabel Modemz

[Miles Nordin]

On Mon, May 29, 2000 at 04:03:24AM +0000, pilot0920 wrote:
> What is the easiest operating system to do IPv6 with: FreeBSD, Linux,
> Solaris, or Windows NT?

I'm afraid this will degenerate into the usual Mac-vs-PeeCee style of 
useless war, but that's never stopped me before.

One problem with making these (IMHO, rather important) evaluations is that 
they change from month to month as each project grows in the direction of 
their various goals.  I get the impression that FreeBSD in particular 
has made a lot of recent progress.

That said, from watching this list and keeping my eyes open for the last 
few years, I absolutely cannot recommend working with any experimental 
Linux feature.  The project is too disorganized, poorly supported, and 
overburdened with people who ask silly questions on high-traffic mailing 
lists without reading any documentation first.

Your best bet if you want an IPv6 Linux machine is to keep your eyes open 
at your local CompUSA for a box from RedHat or Corel or Caldera or 
something that says, ``New, Improved, now with IPv6 built in!'' in 
gigantic red shaking text next to a grinning stoned penguin.  Buy the 
box, tear off the shrinkwrap, and read the 10-page installation 
manual.  If you have any further questions, post immediately to your 
manufacturer's mailing list and request a private reply--there's no 
need to subscribe, because Linux support is excellent.  The Linux 
community includes a band of enthusiastic knowledgeable ``volunteers'' 
who are happy to answer _all_ your questions.

However, until CompUSA starts selling such a box, things are a little more 
difficult.  You can make them easier on yourself by avoiding Linux for now.


NetBSD is a good and all-too-often gratuitously overlooked choice.  Their 
integration of the KAME code is the oldest, and is not surprisingly very, 
very complete.  The project is lucky enough to include a few particular 
developers who have kept up a long-term commitment to get things resolved  
quickly and cleanly, and their progress has amazed me.

I remember a certain Bay Networks wireless driver that got IPv6-corrected 
literally the day after it was integrated to -current, thus giving the 
NetBSDers at the IETF conference a working wireless IPv6 to show all 
their colleagues. :)

Most of the NetBSD packages collection is IPv6-enabled as well. :'

I don't even have IPv6 enabled on my system, yet:

casey:~/work$ uname -a
NetBSD casey 1.4X NetBSD 1.4X (CASEY) #8: Mon Apr 10 17:18:02 MDT 2000     carton@casey:/scratch/src/sys/arch/sparc/compile/CASEY sparc
casey:~/work$ telnet ::1
Trying ::1...
Connected to ::1.
Escape character is '^]'.
[...]

This has worked for a very long time. :)

> Linux is the easiest since so much code and information is available for it, 

I have not attempted a Linux set-up.  However, I would advise against this 
path, and also this reasoning.  First, why not the Linux path?  Linux's 
integration of IPv6 is recent, incomplete, and spottily-maintained.  Not so 
much for lack of effort, but just because it's really difficult to move 
in a consistent direction on that project without the active involvement of 
Linus or one of the wealthier distributions (meaning, RedHat).  NetBSD (and 
FreeBSD) offers a complete IPv6-aware installation out of the box.  With 
Linux, you need to tweak kernel parameters and integrate FreeSWAN code, all 
the while working against maintainers like Linus and distributors like 
RedHat who have higher priorities than integrating IPv6.

n.b. a recent posting on this list, that the IPv6 module for Linux does not 
export/import the proper symbols, and therefore has to be statically linked 
into the kernel.  That alone would be a problem not even worth mentioning, 
except that IPv6 was _offered_ to you as a module, so you have to stumble 
around and figure out w.t.f. is wrong, and the brokenness changes from one 
week to the next.  In my experience, this is typical.  BSD -current has far 
fewer of these problems, and that's probably just the tip of the iceburg.  
ex., ``What about Apache-v6?  any one got an RPM?''  On BSD, already done.

Intuitively, it's best to get a ``distro,'' as those crazy Linux kids 
keep calling it, with IPv6 built in.  That means BSD.


Now, on to the reasoning that led you to Linux in the first place.  Your 
assumption that volume == quality is a dangerous one.  One might 
convincingly argue that 

 (a) you do not need ``much code.''  You need ``enough code.''  Given that 
     Implementation X, Y, and Z all work and are complete, the one with 
     the least code is likely to be nicer to use, configure, improve, u.s.w.

 (b) the reason you can count the amount of code available for Linux is that 
     Linux has not integrated said code.  You do not count the size of KAME 
     on *BSD because it's already rolled into the OS.  The fact that you have 
     an ``amount of code'' to quantify is a bad sign.

 (c) Often I've found that the reason Linux has so much documentation is that 
     it is rife with special cases, difficult to configure, varies 
     tremendously from one installation to the next.  Sometimes, the 
     documentation is even sloppily-written ``HOWTO'' style script-kiddie 
     documentation littered with the second person pronouns and ``okay, 
     like...'' if not with 3's 1's ph's and z's.  see 

       http://crackmonkey.org/faq.html#ANSWER26 

     for a continuation of my hyperbole.

     I would not deny that Linux's documentation is among its greatest 
     strengths.  For example, Linux books have basically taken over my 
     local bookstore.  But, you should at least be aware of an alternate 
     perspective.

     Note that the VAX and the AS/400 come with a lot of documentation, 
     too.  Once again, personally I prefer brief, consistent, and helpful, 
     over long, whimsical, and condescending.

> but you can prove me wrong.

no, I can't.  It's not _that_ unambiguous.  I've told you what I know and 
what I think, and that's all I can do.  

If you're persistent, I'm sure you can get whatever system you want to 
work.  You may have other issues, like for example you may know Linux 
better than you know any other Unix, or you may just plain like it.  But, 
you asked, ``which is easiest.''  I've told you what I think is easiest.

> How do I enable 6to4 support in Linux to work with a cable modem?

We could really use a list archive or something--is anyone keeping one?  
Anyway, people ask your question at least three times a week, so please 
don't take this personally, but...

Generally you can't get answers on this list unless you ask a question 
that proves you've already done some reading.  The best answer you'll get 
to the question above is:

  see http://www.freenet6.net and http://www.6bone.org.

I always feel bad saying that, because I'm not sure how you managed to find 
this list without finding the web sites and their documentation first.  But, 
there's nothing for it:  start reading and get to work.  Good luck!

-- 
Miles Nordin / v:+1 720 841-8308 fax:+1 530 579-8680
555 Bryant Street PMB 182 / Palo Alto, CA 94301-1700 / US

<IMG SRC="C:\CON\CON" HEIGHT="0" WIDTH="0">