Re: current state of IPv6 support in Debian
>>>>> Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org> writes:
Thanks for the comments!
IS> Surprised by the clarity of IPv6, I now have thoughts of abandoning
IS> IPv4 on my home LAN (... where the RFC 1918 lie...) altogether.
IS> So far, I've noticed the following problems that make me delay this
IS> move. The list is as per Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 (Lenny), unless
IS> stated otherwise.
JM> First question: why drop IPv4 at all?
The question for me is: why to maintain two semi-independent
networks? (Not that I want to avoid the challenge, too.)
JM> For the next 5-10 years at least IMHO it would be futile to do so
JM> unless you want to cut yourself off from the Interwebz.
My home LAN has a single (non-RFC 1918) IPv4 address, and even
that one is tunneled via a distant provider, so the users
usually rely on NAT. (And there're actually a couple of routers
doing NAT -- one is mine, and one provider's.) I don't think
that using NAT64 instead of plain old IPv4 NAT on my side is
going to make any difference.
IS> I wonder, are there other specific problems to check for, and
IS> what's the state of the ones listed?
IS> * NAT64; (should I try to write a quick and dirty one myself?)
JM> What is your need for NAT64? If you just want to look at IPv4
JM> websites (in the case of disabling IPv4 and then use a HTTP
JM> proxy...)
JM> Other solution that scales and works: SOCKS, v5 of course due to
JM> passing of hostnames and thus the SOCKS server doing the lookups.
Huh? Is the support for SOCKS in applications is that wide
nowadays?
IS> * Squid 3.0; Squid 3.1 supports IPv6, but is still not in Sid;
JM> Squid developers are then also very lazy and slow wrt IPv6.
I guess I have to check it myself.
JM> http://cacheboy.net/ is probably the answer to that; and of course
JM> Apache2 works fine too.
IIUC, Apache 2 is not a cache?
IS> * `flow-tools' and `fprobe-ulog'; (use `nfdump' and `softflowd'
IS> instead? oh well, `nfdump' depends on... `ttf-dejavu'! thanks to
IS> the `librrd4' dependency);
JM> If you require gratuit NetFlow something NFSen/NFdump is the best
JM> you can get,
?
$ apt-cache search nfsen
$
JM> if you have a wad of cash then there are other options ;).
JM> You need NFv9/IPFIX though for actually supporting IPv6. There are
JM> various probes that support IPv6, google around for IPFIX helps as
JM> generally they then also have IPv6 support.
It seems that `softflowd' and `nfdump' support NetFlow v9, and
also IPv6.
IS> * VoIP -- apparently, neither Ekiga nor Linphone support IPv6; any
IS> suggestions? (CLI software is preferred, but will consider anything
IS> capable of IPv6);
JM> Twinkle works with IPv6.
ACK. (The version in ArchLinux, that my colleague have tested
today, apparently doesn't.)
JM> For Windows I recommend http://www.phonerlite.de/
ACK. (Not that I'm that interested, but my colleagues could
probably be...)
IS> * today I saw mount(8) failing to mount an NFS volume over IPv6; I
IS> didn't investigated it further as of this moment;
JM> Some people claim it works, some others don't. Prolly a
JM> userspace/kernelspace combination issue.
I'm going to investigate it later.
IS> * (still have to IPv6-check Asterisk and Yate);
JM> Asterisk has patches (www.asteriskv6.org), but they are not in the
JM> main tree (this seems to be an upstream issue as....) FreeSWITCH,
JM> which is not in Debian yet, does IPv6, SCTP, Jingle, ZRTP (if you
JM> have the SDK) etc all out of the box (fetch from svn &
JM> dpkg-buildpackage -b, install debian packages, presto) The patches
JM> for both come from the same people, thus I guess there is a problem
JM> at * which is blocking it all, which is a shame (and caused me to
JM> switch to freeswitch, which does have all the good working
JM> features)
ACK.
IS> * (still have to investigate whether my D-Link WiFi access point
IS> passes IPv6 or not; but wait, that isn't related to either Debian
IS> or my home LAN.)
JM> It is if you run Debian on the thing ;)
Did anyone had success with running Debian on D-Link DAP-1150?
JM> [as a side-note: generally OpenWRT does a perfect job as an IPv6
JM> gateway]
--
FSF associate member #7257
Reply to: