[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: KDE and IPv6

On Monday 07 November 2005 21:01, Nate Bargmann was heard to say:
> Well, ipv6calc shows me:
> ipv6calc --ipv4_to_6to4addr
> 2002:c0a8:114::
> Not that I understand IPV4 to IPV6 conversion or anything, but I'm
> not sure if the 2002 at the head of the output is significant or
> the double colons at the tail.

I think it's a literal conversion, one bit pattern mapped onto the 

The "compatibility" address is "::", but I have yet to 
find out what the "compatibility" mode gains. There doesn't seem to 
be any automatic address/header remapping going on, so maybe it 
exists so that v4 to v6 gateways could be easily defined.

I settled on fef::192:168:1:20 because "fef:" is private address 
space, just like 10.x.x.x and 192.168.x.x in v4, and until someone 
tells me what compatibility mode is good for, might as well go 
straight to it.

> I wonder if IPV6 is going to actually happen.  I read somewhere in
> the past couple of days (might have been a Slashdot post :-/ ) that
> IPV6 is "overkill" and some are proposing a reassignment of sorts
> for IPV4 addresses.

IPv6 suffers from what is called "second system" syndrome. The first 
system, designed by individuals to meet specific needs, works well. 
The second system, designed by committee, may fix some of the 
shortcomings of the first system, but it adds features and features 
and features.

v6 starts out well. The simplification of headers, to a specific 
length even with the huge addresses, is a very good thing. Had v6 
stopped there, I would be entirely happy with it. But NoooOOOoooo!

> Personally, I like the dotted quad notation of 
> IPV4 over the MAC address like format of IPV6 and I'm still getting
> used to seeing adjaceant colons.

The adjacent colons are shorthand for "all zeros, move along, nothing 
to see here". Purely for human consumption, and it does make 128 bits 
easier in human communications. But yeah, it's that committee thing. 
More features.

IPv6 has a huge hurdle to overcome: installed base. NAT has been v4's 
saving grace, allowing even the elephant of AOL to live behind a 
small block of routable addresses. But a reassignment of v4 addresses 
would be a "very good thing", and even that would be painful and I'm 
sure it's being resisted.

What I want to see is easy NAT that converts from v4 to v6. I haven't 
seen a router that will do that yet, but I'm sure if I can think of 
it others have too. And who knows what is buried in the catacombs of 
Cisco IOS?

> - Nate >>


September 11th, 2001
The proudest day for gun control and central 
planning advocates in American history

Reply to: