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

[Dave]

I forgot to forward a copy to the list :-(

 - Dave


Dave wrote:
>From dave Wed Apr 17 19:03:46 2002
Subject: Re: WAS... Re: pTLA request for RMNET - review closes 23 April 2002
To: hansolofalcon@worldnet.att.net (Gregg C Levine)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 19:03:46 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <000001c1e400$ff2f2fe0$1c52580c@who> from "Gregg C Levine" at Apr 14, 2002 06:09:06 PM
From: Dave <dave@dave.tj>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
Content-Length: 11353     

What is your question???  If it's "What is (was) the Slackware forum?" you
may want to check out <URL:http://www.slackware.com/forums/>.

 - Dave


Gregg C Levine wrote:
> 
> 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.
> > >
> > >
> 


Dave wrote: