[BBLISA] anybody doing IPv6 for real operations?/possible presentation topic

[Internaut at Large]

Greetings,

On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 18:03 -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010, Internaut at Large wrote:
> 
> > Greetings,
> > 
> > On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 10:00 -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> > > On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Internaut at Large wrote:
> > > > > IPV4 and IPV6 are like siamese twins, and the separation surgery is just
> > > > > as ugly and can kill both.  Indeed, ISPs will need Dr. CLNS and Nurse
> > > > > IS-IS just to perform the surgery.... Why not just put Dr. CLNS in
> > > > > charge now and not have simase twins? ;-)
> > > > 
> > > > Umm ... here you've gone off the deep end, my friend.  UUCP, IPv4, and
> > > > IPv6 running side by side by side.  Not a problem.  Do you need some
> > > > help in your configurations?  I'm sure there are some qualified people
> > > > on this list who are more than happy to help ...
> > > 
> > > No, you just have been trying out your configurations, nor looking at 
> > > what is really going on with the network when you are running both.
> > 
> > I'm so glad you know exactly what I was doing.
> 
> I know whats out there for home use, what you could be doing.  I know
> that these little demos don't really represent how well IPV6 works.

Ahh ... I see.  So, you know what I did, how I did it, and can dismiss
it as a little demo.  Good good.  Then, I, in turn, dismiss what you've
done proving that CLNS moves IPSec trivially, as well, and we will just
be throwing stones.  What's that?  Oh, someone still needs to port IPSec
to CLNS for you, before you can do the "trivial little demo" that was
done on IPv6?  And yet, this is your "solution" in less than 600 days?

> > > Try, just try, turning off IPv4, and blocking traffic to IPv4 root
> > > nameservers for example.
> > 
> > Why would I do that?  Then I'd be running only IPv6, not IPv4 and IPv6
> > side by side, which, you said, was impossible?
> 
> Yes. I said things will break when you turn off IPv4.  If you can't turn
> off IPV4, what's the point of having IPv6?

Umm ... expanded name space?  Being able to run my servers point to
point?  Being able to do in _now_ on my servers
_as_they_currently_exist_ without having to port some other software to
them, and then port all my apps to use this other software?  But I'm jut
the "last-served end-user" what do I know?
 
> And also, obviously, since IPV6 isn't supported by most sites, nor
> routed by many ISPs, and you didn't notice their non-operation, you were
> just getting nat'ed to IPV4 by your tunnel provider.

Again, how ... brilliantly insightful of you, except I could get to some
sites, that were already running IPv6, and they could get to me,
directly, as well, not via IPv4, but via IPv6, via my tunnel, granted,
but it was only 1 tunnel, as opposed to the several I need at the moment
to get IPv4 and NAT to do what I want to do, and what you insist is the
way I should do it, as the ISP Godfather.

>  So you weren't
> really running IPv6, just a tunnel protocol;  IPV6 was just stripped off
> along with the IPSEC headers and natted to the IPV6 tunnel's IPV4
> address.  This isn't really running IPV6.  Its more like an IPV6
> point-to-point protocol.

Apparently you don't quite know how a tunnel works, either, apparently.
Yes, the tunnel is point to point, but all the machines on either
endpoint are equally accessible.  But, you run an ISP, you should,
perhaps, know that?  Yes?  And as I connect to other folks directly, via
mesh networking, or what-have-you, I build my IPv6 network, and as
Google does the same, the US Government does the same, various companies
do the same, our tunnel gets wider and wider, and the endpoints that can
be reached are not so cul-de-sac based ... and we grow.  Just like
FIDO-net.  ISP-less.  Maybe that's what causes you fear?  Mesh
networking all over cities, passing IPv6 around, casually connecting
neighborhoods, cities, and machines.  Machines that can be free to be
servers again.

> 
> > Now you are claiming that that's the only way to do it?  And yes, as a
> > test, I did bring the machines, in question, up in only IPv6 mode, and
> > tested, and everything worked for the day of the test, why do you ask?  
> 
> Oh. Really. Did you get to sites that aren't using IPV4?

Ummm ... yes!  Hence an IPv6 test?  Otherwise it would have been just a
machine, talking to itself in the dark?  Just like there needed to be a
machine on either side of the first bitnet connection to talk to each
other, the first UUCP connection to talk to each other, otherwise how is
it a test?  Now, in my case, I didn't have to bring up the other side,
there is a whole community of folks out there who talk IPv6, and,
believe it or not, so did the section of my company that I was
connecting to.  But, of course that couldn't exist, because us
"last-served end-users" have to wait until all our controlling and
limiting parents^H^H^H^H^H^H^HISPs get it first, test it for us, limit
it so we can't hurt ourselves, and then dole out to us what is
appropriate?

> > Are you incapable of configuring your machines to run any way you
> > want?  Again, if you need help, I'm sure there are competent folks
> > here that can help you.
> 
> Haha.

I'm glad you find your inability to use IPv6 funny.  Some of the rest of
us are a touch concerned though.

> Did I insult you?

Nope.  Did I insult you?  You just ignored a repeated question that I
keep asking.  What bells and whistles of yours were left out of IPv6
that cause you to hate it so?

> I didn't mean to insult you; just inform you 
> that you have many misconceptions of what IPV6 will get for you.

And I don't mean to insult you, but you apparently can't seem to
comprehend that I, personally (and via anecdote, and experience so has
many other people) already gotten it working once, and will probably do
so several more times in the next year or so, and, since you don't seem
to be capable of understanding something as simple as that, and can't
seem to get it working for yourself, that you might need help in getting
your system configured with the software that us lowly end-users want to
use.

> > And someone from the Rhine institute called.  They said that you
> > should know their number and call them back.
> 
> I don't know the Rhine institute, so I don't get your joke.  But
> whatever it is, I think the joke must be on you, since you do know who
> the Rhine institute is and know their number.

Do you know what Google is, young man?  I'm sure you might have heard of
it.  Do you prefer to wave your ignorance about in public?  Oh, wait,
we've all been reading this thread.  I forgot.  Perhaps, after you take
the moment or two to actually look beyond, you might learn and grow.
Good luck with that.

> 		--Dean

-dkap contemplating operatic pigs.