Re: [9fans] The IPv6 in Plan9

[presotto@plan9.bell-labs.com]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 993 bytes --]

I started an ipv6 stack and got disgusted.  I decided I'ld wait until there
was someone worth talking to using it to finish.  I'll probably get back to it
soon unless someone beats me to the draw.

My general take on v6 it does a bunch of things differently, many better than
v4, but , except for the increased address space, none are compelling.  There
still is no real reason for ISP's to switch to it.  Big servers definitely
can't switch to it or they'll lose their customer base, at best they'll have
to go dual stack and all that does for them is double their administrative costs.

Perhaps something like NAPSTER will cause more people to need unique
addresses, but until then it makes more sense for an ISP to provide
large scale NAT and reverse NAT services.  If they're serious about
going to IPv6 they're going to have to provide protocol/address translation
services anyways as the world switches over so a move to wider area NAT
would be good practice until then.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 5442 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 387 bytes --]


> We  didn't  see any issue in plan9. And the networking base
> all are IPv4

Plan 9 uses IPv6 format addresses by default, though there is
no IPv6 protocol stack for handling IPng traffic. There are a 
lot of hooks in place for the soul that wishes to add such 
support, it seems. It looks like such an effort would drop in rather 
nicely. See ip (2) for more info.
-
pip


[-- Attachment #2.1.2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3311 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2.1.2.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 231 bytes --]

We didn't see any issue in plan9. And the networking base  all are 
IPv4. When will it update to IPv6 for all networking?

And Will Plan9 add more advance features to IPv6. Like IPsec etc.

Wait Mr.Rob Pike's reply.

GuQin

[-- Attachment #2.1.2.1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 725 bytes --]