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.)
73,
- Lynwood
KB3VWG
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.)
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
I think we should not again make the (know known) mistake of having a private address space and using a tunnel mesh to route it. It is not scalable and it cannot be deployed except by IT buffs.
Hopefully we will sometime get a backbone network as was discussed half a year ago, and it can be extended to use IPv6. It can use address space made available by the hosters of the local routers so there is no need to arrange for BGP announcement as we now need for IPv4. So it will be much less hassle.
Furthermore, those that do not want to use that backbone can advertise their own IPv6 range (acquired from a capable ISP that does not change it every day or applies port filtering to it), and it will just route automatically to the remainder of the network without requiring tunnels or other difficult to grasp concepts for the RADIO amateur (as opposed to the computer networking hobbyist). They will only need to enter their IPv6 space into some portal entry, and do not need to setup any special software or router.
Rob
On 5/17/21 9:57 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
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
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
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
I have not said that I do not want IPv6! My opinion is that we should not get a large IPv6 allocation (like a /32) and then try to route that ourselves, like we currently do with IPv4. With BGP advertisements of small fragments of it, and with a tunnel mesh to route between us. Instead, everyone should just get IPv6 allocations from their local ISP, or from 6in4 tunnel providers like HE, etc. Let THEM do the routing, and when someone wants to make a tunnel or radio link between two networks that is still a possibility. But we do not need to build that entire backbone routing infrastructure ourselves, it already exists. Instead of having a "nicely memorizable address" (which does not exist in IPv6 anyway...) we instead can just build and distribute a whitelist containing the IPv6 addresses that amateurs around the world are using, which can be used for some "friend or foe" identification. Although it would be much better to devise a new system for THAT. (some authentication/authorization system that allows us to admit radio amateurs to services which are by nature only available for radio amateurs, like access to remote transmitters)
Rob
On 5/21/21 6:36 AM, John via 44Net wrote:
sincerely curious to know why PE1CHL doesnt want IPv6 since the list archive isnt searchable. is it too costly perhaps? or bureaucratically encumbered?
ipv6: A rich white man's problem. that's how it looks like when viewed from outside the sci-fi bubble.
73 de ei4ku, on ipv4 for the rest of this century. not by choice.
What? Ireland does not have a plan on going to IPV6?
________________________________________ De : 44Net 44net-bounces+petem001=hotmail.com@mailman.ampr.org de la part de zed via 44Net 44net@mailman.ampr.org Envoyé : 21 mai 2021 05:55 À : Rob PE1CHL via 44Net Cc : ei4ku@ei4ku.ampr.org Objet : Re: [44net] IPv6
ipv6: A rich white man's problem. that's how it looks like when viewed from outside the sci-fi bubble.
73 de ei4ku, on ipv4 for the rest of this century. not by choice. _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net@mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
http://ipv6gov.eu/ but of course Ireland does ;)
And my apologies to PE1CHL for my crass misstatement of his opinion.
On May 21, 2021 5:30:05 AM PDT, pete M via 44Net 44net@mailman.ampr.org wrote:
What? Ireland does not have a plan on going to IPV6?
De : 44Net 44net-bounces+petem001=hotmail.com@mailman.ampr.org de la part de zed via 44Net 44net@mailman.ampr.org Envoyé : 21 mai 2021 05:55 À : Rob PE1CHL via 44Net Cc : ei4ku@ei4ku.ampr.org Objet : Re: [44net] IPv6
ipv6: A rich white man's problem. that's how it looks like when viewed from outside the sci-fi bubble.
73 de ei4ku, on ipv4 for the rest of this century. not by choice. _________________________________________ 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
Actually it is more a poor man's problem. The rich men all have sufficient IPv4 space and can continue to use it, the poor souls that came late on the internet and could not get IPv4 space anymore now have to deal with IPv6 or CGNAT.
Rob
On 5/21/21 11:55 AM, zed via 44Net wrote:
ipv6: A rich white man's problem. that's how it looks like when viewed from outside the sci-fi bubble.
On 5/17/21 3:57 PM, Steve L via 44Net wrote:
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
Political filtering tends to be higher up the stack and an unencrypted tunnel will not stop it.
Case in point I had an AllStarLink user from the middle east who couldn't register to our servers outside of France nor actually pass any IAX traffic after the session was setup. I setup a GRE tunnel for him and it still would block some of the IAX packets, irregardless of the port. Ended up having to set him up with an encrypted tunnel to my 44net vpn server just to get IAX to pass.
We suspect this is due to the state monopoly and logging requirements for all voice traffic. These layer 7 packet filters can block anything with a given hash at an offset, and do it quite will. The same filters can easily be used against other services too.
-
Bryan Fields -
ei4ku＠ei4ku.ampr.org -
John -
john roman
-
lleachii＠aol.com -
pete M -
Rob PE1CHL -
Ruben ON3RVH -
Steve L -
TC Groups