Re: HOWTO: Join the 6bone!
On 23 Sep 2000, Greg Stark wrote:
> Jonathan Guthrie <jguthrie@brokersys.com> writes:
> > Ip is part of iproute, which is distributed with Debian. Try typing
> > "/iproute" from the main selection menu in dselect. Heck, why not just
> > type "apt-get install iproute"?
> > While you can set up IPv6 without ip, you'll need a kernel with IPv6
> > support, "Kernel/User netlink socket", "Routing Messages", and "Netlink
> Hm, what is would the response be to making IPv6 a tentative release goal for
> woody?
> I wouldn't suggest holding back packages that aren't IPv6 compatible but just
> deciding that if we have the choice we should integrate IPv6 support into
> anything that we can as the standard debian package.
> Ideally we don't want to have to tell users to install special kame userspace
> programs, don't have to tell them to recompile their kernel, etc. Of course
> they'll need to find their own gateway, but some users may already have a use
> for IPv6 either on their servers or within their own networks.
As a matter of fact, the two IPv6-capable workstations that I've set up,
and by "workstation" I mean "computer that doesn't act as a tunnel
endpoint" are just straight potato with a manually-installed Mozilla M-17
Talkback build. To bring them on-line, I just did a "modprobe ipv6" and
fiddled with the /etc/sysctl.conf file, and away they went. Thanks to
router discovery, you don't even need iproute on a workstation.
As a matter of fact, I have only one computer even with a tunnel endpoint
that refers in its sources.list to the sites where the IPv6-Specific
packages can be found. I installed radvd manually on the others. To me,
that means that Woody is already pretty close to what you describe for
workstations. In fact, it even looks like Milestone 17 is already in
woody.
Given the foregoing, the fact that it appears that I was incorrect about
the requirement to build IPv6 into the kernel (I would be willing to bet
that I had trouble simply because I forgot to reboot after installing the
custom kernel package, which is a hypothesis I'll test as soon as I have
access to a computer that's faster than the wimpy little 133 Mhz Pentium I
use at the house,) and given the fact that the Debian packagers should be
working with the maintainers of the various applications that aren't yet
IPv6 capable in their base form to get that status changed, I'd question
the need to formally declare it as a release goal.
Not that I'd be opposed to that as a goal, as I'd really like to see IPv6
take off, but it may not be necessary.
--
Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com)
Brokersys +281-580-3358 http://www.brokersys.com/
12703 Veterans Memorial #106, Houston, TX 77014, USA
Reply to: