sincerely curious to know why PE1CHL doesnt want IPv6 since the list archive isnt searchable. is it too costly perhaps? or bureaucratically encumbered?
arguing against ipv6 seems illogical.
44net is designed to conduct scientific research and to experiment with digital communications. we use the internet protocol (IP) in doing this, so you would imagine we might want to support its advancement, IPv6. Providing an IPv6 allocation allows hams to experiment with things like IPSec headers, unforeseen and foreseen consequences of unfragmented packet routing (as well as prohibition on pathological fragmentation), NDP and SLAAC support in radio hardware, and how to route between the private v6, link local, and public v6 allocations as well as bridged mode RA technical elements. supporting advancements in the internet protocol conversely supports advancements in amateur radio.
This argument that we "dont need" ipv6 is tantamount to stating "well we dont support PACTOR II because we already have PACTOR" or "PACTOR IV is unnecessary because slow transmissions still function just fine." arguments that center on the dearth of address space in v6 plainly miss much of the technical value of the version.
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 06:44:32PM +0000, Ruben ON3RVH via 44Net wrote:
Last I checked you had to take the test and prove that you understand ipv6 to get a /48, but you get a /64 by default indeed. (But it has been several years since I last checked)
Ruben - ON3RVH
On 19 May 2021, at 19:22, TC Groups via 44Net 44net@mailman.ampr.org wrote:
For anyone who wants to experiment with IPv6, Hurricane Electric has a tunnelbroker service that you can get anything between a /48 and a /64 for free (last I checked). They also have an IPv6 certification program that teaches IPv6. The size of the smallest IPv6 allocation (/64) is absolutely mind boggling.
--tom/N2XU
On 5/17/21 2:57 PM, Steve L via 44Net wrote: Well I once said it would be like we are now with IPv4 in terms of a lack of infrastructure to deal with routing it. But that has likely changed, or could be now that we have cash.
I had pointed out that we could and at that time might have been better off using the IPV6 space provided by our internet providers, and just registering those ham radio use addresses in a DNS, and doing a while list approach to secure it. (I still think an alternative automated DNS that one could register like ar-dns.net by using the lotw certificate would be a good project.)
However as some others else pointed out, internet providers block a lot of ports and services. So tunneling of some fashion does alleviate that. And as the internet continues with more and more probes, political policies, and a general ipv4 shortage, this ISP filtering and carrier grade NAT might make a larger use case for hams to have ways around those restrictions to keep supporting their internet connected ham radio stuff, i.e. IRLP, AllStar, etc
Outside of the world of ham radio I think it would be good (and in line with the ARDC missions/grants) to try and promote IPV6 adoption to the general populace. So if someone has an idea for some killer application that resides only in IPV6 or some other idea then I'd encourage them to step forward, speak up and or apply for a grant if they need that.
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 2:33 PM Rob PE1CHL via 44Net 44net@mailman.ampr.org wrote: We don't need one, and it is better we don't get one. (it has been discussed before, look back in the archives)
Rob
On 5/17/21 9:25 PM, lleachii--- via 44Net wrote:
All, I've hear some people mention IPv6. I've said before "closed mouths don't get fed"...
Maybe we can again ask for an IPv6 allocation to be given to us???
(I know this may be late.)
44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net