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

[Gregg C Levine]

Hello from Gregg C Levine normally with Jedi Knight Computers
I just finished reading your statement regarding the dearth of luck, and
successes, that you have been having, and I noticed a reference in your
statements, that stood out. And I quote here, " 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.". I recognize the reference to
"USAGI" so I am not asking about that. I am asking about the "Slackware
forum". Who, or what was that? Slackware is indeed still in business,
they are moving towards a release of 8.1 of their distribution. But you
are right. When I was meandering through the whole idea of getting my
Slackware system connected, I realized that I would need to use the
services of a Freenet type tunnel broker. So with that decision I
shelved it. So I still have one question to ask, and that one, is it. 
-------------------
Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon@worldnet.att.net
------------------------------------------------------------
"The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi
"Use the Force, Luke."  Obi-Wan Kenobi
(This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi )
(This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda )



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-6bone@ISI.EDU [mailto:owner-6bone@ISI.EDU] On Behalf Of
Dave
> Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 3:59 PM
> To: robert@quantum-radio.net.au
> Cc: 6bone
> Subject: Re: WAS... Re: pTLA request for RMNET - review closes 23
April 2002
> 
> 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.
> >
> >