Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 08:09:18 -0700 From: Bob Van Zant <bob@veznat.com> To: <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: IPv6 Ideas Message-ID: <C617242E.80F75%bob@veznat.com> In-Reply-To: <20090424120022.DE524106568C@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I was in a similar position to you not that long ago. I got my LAN all dual stack and was a happy camper. I wanted 100% IPv6 and never to see another RFC 1918 address on my network again. Unfortunately it's just not practical. My ReadyNAS doesn't talk v6. My mac doesn't appear to like v6 for the file transfer protocols it supports. My iPhone doesn't do v6. The applications just aren't ready to live in a v6-only world. I suggest leaning on your vendors whenever you can so that they no longer can say "no one is asking for it." A boring, un-bumped thread asking for IPv6 support in the iPhone: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1960260&tstart=0 Getting back to your question. It is my understanding that this IVI proposal is the most likely to become an officially adopted standard: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xli-behave-ivi-01 That's being done as part of the behave working group: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/behave-charter.html If anyone were to begin working on something like this this they'd probably want to think about following that proposal. I too am interested in working on this. Just haven't sat down to really start thinking about it yet. -Bob Message: 14 Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:14:50 -0400 From: Nathan Lay <nslay@comcast.net> Subject: IPv6 Ideas To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Message-ID: <49F1128A.3080501@comcast.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed I started playing with IPv6 on my home network with the intent to transition over. While many things work quite well, IPv6 technology in general still seems to have some rough edges. In terms of FreeBSD support, rtadvd and rtsol do not yet support (easily? -O option in rtadvd/rtsold) RFC5006 (Router Advertisements Option for DNS Configuration) which make it inconvenient to use mobile devices (like laptops) on an IPv6 network. I haven't had much luck with net/radvd. Is this something that could be improved? I'd be willing to implement this support, but I have very little time to spare (writing thesis). To be backward compatible with IPv4, I had a look at faith and faithd and while these tools are ingenius, I don't think they are good enough for transitioning to IPv6. I imagine it is possible to write an IPv6->IPv4 NAT daemon that uses faith to capture and restructure IPv6/IPv4 packets. Though, it really seems like this is the firewall's job A pf rule like: nat on $inet4_if inet to any from $lan_if:network6 -> ($inet4_if) would be extremely convenient. I'm aware pf doesn't support the token :network6 ... its just a wishful example. The IPv6 mapped IPv4 addresses would be the standard ::ffff:0:0/96 prefix. I imagine that this is very difficult to implement but I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. If a firewall supported this kind of NAT, a home network could easily deploy IPv6 and be backward compatible. Well, not quite, I guess BIND would have to serve IPv6 mapped IPv4 addresses to IPv6 queries. Oh yeah, one annoyance on 7-STABLE, it seems like pf is started before IPv6 rc.conf options are processed (including IPv6 address assignment) breaking inet6 rules that involve $if:network. Comments? Other than that, this has been one hell of a fun experience. Best Regards, Nathan Lay
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C617242E.80F75%bob>