On 15/08/2016 4:12 PM, Bryan Fields wrote: I'll be interested to hear what's happening with IPv6. -- 73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL http://vkradio.com

On 8/15/16 2:21 AM, Tony Langdon wrote: I'd like to see AMPRNET get an allocation and function as a RIR to ham radio handing out /32's or /48's. We have a /48 from our upstream now for Tampa Bay HamWAN, but it's not deployed due to be being lazy/working/sick :( 73's -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net

On 15/08/2016 4:42 PM, Bryan Fields wrote: Would be nice. I already have full IPv6 capability here, so I'm not a stranger to the protocol. I'd also like to see software developers start utilising IPv6. Very little ham radio software is IPv6 capable. It's frustrating when one has deployed IPv6 and has to keep battling with the evils of NAT. :/ I've been considering allocating a /64 or two from my /56 to ham radio use, just to experiment. -- 73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL http://vkradio.com

I agree that we need to move away from relying on using a block of network addresses to identify valid ham radio hosts. A prefix trust list would provide much more flexibility for network design. To keep individual hams' radio-vs-non radio hosts distinct, the trusts should be something like a /64 where the actual radio gear will be deployed within a given ham's own IPv6 range. It then makes it practical to 'wall off' the radio gear within the ham's home network to prevent unintended access of the ham radio network by non-ham devices. We can reduce the need for regional network management - any station (club/repeater/individual) that wants to join can do so equally, as there would be no subnets to manage, only over-the-air routes (which would still need to be managed regionally) - although I'd be happy to see at least some of these built dynamically, too (the trust list could be used here to authorise route changes as well). Tunnels should no longer be necessary - if using the Internet for routing, the IPv6 addresses become perfectly routable via the ISPs. The trust lists would be used to filter incoming traffic to prevent non-ham use of these routes. We get a flexible, resilient, more manageable (meaning less management required) network. The main management tasks would be maintaining the trust list and over-the-air routes. IPv6 has some real advantages for over-the-air use, including header compression that could actually reduce overhead on the radio links. - Richard, VE7CVS On 8/15/16 6:37 AM, Antonio Querubin wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016, Bryan Fields wrote: +1 though I don't think we need an IPv6 'numbering' plan as we need a network trust plan and enumerate all the 'trusted' networks whether they be IPv6 or net-44. The increasing ease of obtaining IPv6 address space and connectivity, particularly for end-users, changes the paradigm of having to rely on a single netblock for address space. The latter results in inefficient tunnelling and aggregated points of failure at the net-44 'gateways' that simply aren't necessary in an IPv6 world. Antonio Querubin e-mail: tony(a)lavanauts.org xmpp: antonioquerubin(a)gmail.com

On 15/08/16 07:12, Bryan Fields wrote: See you there, John EI7IG