WAS... Re: pTLA request for RMNET - review closes 23 April 2002

[Dave]

Nope, you're _not_ alone.  In fact, you've had much more luck than
I've had.  I finally gave up on getting it to work serveral months ago,
only posting comments to that effect every so often (when somebody
else posted here asking how to get his f---in' system connected) since.
I've read through every last bit of documentation I've been able to locate
(of which there's no lack, if you search Yahoo!), but all of it is either
targetted at FreeBSD or rc.config-based GNU/Linux systems.  The Slackware
forum disappeared quite a few months ago, and the USAGI folks are too
busy coding to be able to offer any real help.  Further complicating
the issue is the fact that my Linux kernel supposedly already _has_
IPv6 (and indeed, I'm supposed to be able to ping6 ::1/128 - something I
was only able to verify a couple of months ago, after officially giving
up, since I happend to stumble into a ping6 binary I had lying around
from a SuSE on one of my old systems; I have yet to find a telnet,
traceroute, telnetd, or any other app I can use to figure out what's
up with my IPv6 config, and using anything but loopback for _anything_
is basically out-of-the-question, simply because I have no clue where
to start ... I'll tackle IPv6 Internet connectivity after getting one
or more of my own networks working on IPv6).

I also know a few others who can tell similar tales.  They just aren't
even subscribed to this list anymore.  (I only read this list because I'm
too lazy to unsubscribe - and maybe because I subconsciously hope that
somebody, somewhere, someday might be willing to take the 20 minutes
necessary to explain the HOWTO aspects of configuring a system to use
IPv6, as well as answering my syscall-related questions (which have
prevented me from writing my own programs to test out the network,
thus far).

To top off my annoyance, the latest brand spankin' new Linux/POSIX
edition of the Comer&Stevens volume 3 of Internetworking with TCP/IP
doesn't even mention the existance of IPv6 (!?!) - certainly you weren't
expecting it to provide any details of programming for IPv6, eh?

A rather frusterated IPv6 non-user,
Dave Cohen <dave@dave.tj>


Merlin wrote:
> 
> I wonder if I might come in on this conversation for a moment with another perspective.
> 
> Regardless of the location of end points, and blocks and bits of blocks it seems to me that the whole idea of moving to
> the IPv6 network will die from lack of involvement if it can't become easier to implement. I refer of course to the
> actual setting up of the protocols on an actual computer.
> While it is of course very necessary to continue working on the outlines - RFCs etc - there needs to be some serious
> attempts made to see that valid HOWTOs are produced by those who fully understand the variants.
> 
> I take the comment from Pekka Savola in point.
> > > > If I was serious about experimenting with IPv6,
> 
> Well, there are many people who are serious about experimenting, but the lack of useable information is daunting.
> Mailing lists are ok for what they do - but often only confuse the issue. The documents that are available on the
> internet now on the subject of V6 are nothing if not conflicting!
> 
> The biggest pool of uses or potential users - are of course those already using IPv4. This seems to then be the obvious
> starting point to use to build toward eventual take up of full IPv6. That time is of course many many years away. The
> investment in training, software, hardware, plant and commerce is so great in the IPv4 area that it will probably never
> be fully moved into the IPv6 area in our lifetimes.
> 
> As I understand it, 6to4, using the assigned 2002: prefix was designed to enable the use of IPv6 over the existing
> infrastructure. An admirable idea, and it appears to work well. However, the depth of documentation on the subject again
> is very thin. Enough to get one host or router working if one is lucky, and precious little available to enable a whole
> network.
> Experimenting? sure. I've been fiddling with it for weeks now on and off. I have one host on my network working as a
> host/gateway - finally - I think. and the other host on the network that I set up in the same experimental interest as a
> host only is supposed to autoconfigure and connect - well it doesn't. I'm using FreeBSD which seems to be pretty common
> throughout the discussions, so it shouldn't be a mystery. But of course it is.
> 
> But back to the topic. I've been around the Internet since it was AARNet, so I'm not exactly new to all this. I'm very
> sure that if I'm having problems nutting it all out, there is little hope for quite a few others. I know there are
> useful things like freenet6 out there, but there again - minimal documentation, and it uses a completly different
> prefix, 3fff I think it is from memory. This only serves to further confuse the issue for beginners.
> 
> If 6to4 for a number of 'well known platforms' based on the 2002 prefix - designed as I understand it specifically to
> use the existing IPv4 networks - could be documented carefully and kept updated it would server to increase interest on
> a much wider scale.
> I refer to the apparent ease of understanding that numbering system. 2002 is the prefix that tells everyone that it's an
> address on an existing IPv4 network and probably is still being used for something useful, like a web server. The next
> eight hex-numbers are the IPv4 number translated to hex of the machine that is acting as the IPv6 host/gateway. the
> (cb01:6006 in my case) and the ::1 ( I Think) tells that it's the first host on the internal IPv6 network. This is where
> it all starts to get grey here. Because the second host - which one would think was numbered ::2 on that network can't
> be made to understand that. Any attempt to put that number on any of its interfaces simply confuses it. Interesting
> though, both machines can talk to each other via the fe80:<hex-mac-address>:<interface> which of couse is nothing to do
> with the 2002 prefix.
> 
> Now - I've so far received over a dozen suggestions on how to get the two machines talking to each other correctl, as
> well as to the internet, and every one has been different. I have a cardboard carton full of printouts of the same.
> Variations of the same theme.
> 
> now - I'm not digressing in that discussion above. It's to point out that if it is so hard to set up an IPv6 network
> across an existing IPv4 network, using systems supposedly designed to facilitate that, then no one will bother after the
> first few frustrating attempts.
> If the system isn't loaded too heavily, you should actually be able to connect to http://ruby.chalmers.com.au Apache-2
> install page is all, on 2002:cb01:6006::1 Now, I'm not sure if it's actually listening on the v6 port, put a ping6 to
> the address should work.
> It's the gateway/host/reouter whatever.
> 
> s you can see, the origin is the HEX-MAC address of the other host. Which should be 2002:cb01:6006::2 .....OR.... as
> someone said, it should be 2002:cb01:6005::1 But of course it would be if it were standalone. But it's supposed to be on
> the same network as the 6006 one. You begin to see what I mean.
> $ ping6 ruby
> PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) fe80::210:b5ff:fee4:4386%rl0 --> 2002:cb01:6006::1
> 16 bytes from 2002:cb01:6006::1, icmp_seq=0 hlim=64 time=0.913 ms
> 
> 
> So in conclusion - I suspect that very few people actually understand about esoteric details like latency on pure IPv6
> machines. But I could point at a user group who I'm sure would love to get their teeth into setting up any number of
> hosts, even virtual hosts, behind their one assigned IPv4 address. If someone could come up  with something that was
> readable and useable on the subject of setting up 6to4. (and on FreeBSD in my case.) I'm happy to contribute in any way
> I can, small as that may appear to the wizards of the pure IPv6 world.
> 
> If IPv6 is to be rolled out and not forgotten, people need to be able to implement it on their existing networks.
> 
> just my two cents worth,
> Robert Chalmers
> Quantum Radio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > > > Pekka Savola wrote:
> > > > If I was serious about experimenting with IPv6, I sure would not
> > > > go overseas to find someone who might be willing to slice off a
> > > > part of a block.  However, if I was not serious, I wouldn't care if
> > > > all my IPv6 traffic to European countries crossed the
> > > Atlantic twice.
> 
> > I personally use on day by day basis, IPv6 enabled:
> >  - SSH (PuTTY :)
> >  - SMTP
> >  - Quake 1 + 2*
> >  - HTTP
> >  - X
> >
> >
> 
> > > guarantee that the 6bone will not be used for production.
> > You've got a point there :)
> > Though I think most people will profit from good latency.
> 
>