[TriLUG] IPv6 workshop

[Jonathan Woodbury]

Hi Greg,

Thanks for reading that long post!  I think I understand what you're
saying about the value of NAT when you want to address lots of hosts
by name but don't want to have to update DNS for each host if you
change ISPs and/or tunnel brokers.  I could talk about ways to
mitigate that concern, but I don't think that's the important point
here.

To all your points I'd like to suggest that you, and everyone reading
this, shouldn't let practicality get in the way of digging into
something new.  You very likely don't actually need IPv6 today.  But a
great way to learn about it is to use it.  And if you find that you do
need it one day, maybe not at home, but professionally, you'll be far
better prepared with the experience you can get today.

It's important to remember that everything you have now with IPv4 you
will still have when dual stacking IPv4 with IPv6.  And if you setup
IPv6 at home and don't find a single thing you like about it over
IPv4, I'll buy you a drink!

Jonathan

On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Greg Cox <glcox at pobox.com> wrote:
> Hi Jonathon,
>
> I do appreciate how much you put into your note, but, I'm afraid I have
> to go right to the nonstarter point:
>
>> So if you decided to switch to
>> another broker that offered SIT tunnel brokering, your tunnel
>> configuration would change very little, but you'd have to use all new
>> IPv6 addresses, which is a far more painful change.
>
> In my situation, I think this is something that blocks the whole process.
> What happens when HE's generosity wears off?  What happens when I move
> me and all my boxes to Portlandia?  Or, if we get magical fiber bestowed
> upon us and we all rush to convert providers?  If there's the IP equivalent
> of Local Number Portability, lemme know.  It's a level of annoyance I'd
> just as soon avoid doing multiple times, particularly when (a) much of
> my gear has no need for external visibility, but DOES have a need for
> knowing the names/numbers of the internal service hosts, (b) the existing
> NAT model isn't a pain point, and (c) there's no reason my boxes need to
> reach the larger v6 Internet, but they do want to hit v4.
>
>> If you're using Linux as your router, you might have to change your
>> feelings on NAT with IPv6.  The kernels I've been using do not have
>> a NAT table for ip6tables.  AFAIK, it's technically possible to
>> perform NAT operations with IPv6, but it's generally discouraged
>> and it seems the Linux kernel team might be in strong agreement on that.
>
> More's the pity.  I grant that I'm being stubborn here, but, the "look,
> you can have public addresses.. in fact, you pretty much HAVE to!" is
> an argument AGAINST v6 to me.  Private islands have a win, namely
> guaranteed permanent free(as in Euros) ownership of the space, at the
> (low low) price of network shenanigans.
>
>
> So, from what I've read, it looks like NAT64/DNS64 might be closest to
> what I want.  DNS64 just got popped into BIND 9.8.0, so it should give
> me more time to get all my VMs moved up from lenny to wheezy, and see
> from there.
> --
> This message was sent to: Jonathan Woodbury <jpwoodbu at mybox.org>
> To unsubscribe, send a blank message to trilug-leave at trilug.org from that
> address.
> TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> Unsubscribe or edit options on the web  :
> http://www.trilug.org/mailman/options/trilug/jpwoodbu%40mybox.org
> TriLUG FAQ          : http://www.trilug.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions
>