Re: [9fans] The IPv6 in Plan9

Re: [9fans] The IPv6 in Plan9

[presotto]

[-- 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 --]

Re: [9fans] The IPv6 in Plan9

[Lucio De Re]

On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 11:14:54AM -0400, presotto@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
I was going to get all political about this, but I thought better of
it :-)

In the extremely unlikely event that you have not heard about it, the
KAME project seems very close to completion of a second IP stack for
the *BSD OSes.  If you need e-mail details, drop me a line or have a
look at the e-mail archives for tech-net@netbsd.org, which you ought
to be able to find on <http://www.netbsd.org/>.

Note that WinNT (or is it only Win2k?) has a putative IPv6 stack in
it.  The fact that it is not widely deployed can be interpreted any
way one likes :-)

++L

Re: [9fans] The IPv6 in Plan9

[Steve Kilbane]

On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 11:14:54AM -0400, presotto@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote:
> 
> 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've sometimes wondered whether having an optional IPv6 stack would be a
good way to get further penetration of Plan 9 (or whatever OS you implement
it on): offering the box's functionality as a ready-made IPv6 backbone
system.

To increase the user base, users have to want something that they can't get
elsewhere, and IPv6 is the main example of something that _everyone_ might
want, at some point. Most other wide-scale wants are wishy-washy terms,
like "e-commerce" and "micropayments." (but strangely, not "security")

'Course, the fact that they don't want it _yet_ is telling.

steve

Re: [9fans] The IPv6 in Plan9

[Boyd Roberts]

From: Steve Kilbane <steve@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>

> To increase the user base, users have to want something that they can't get
> elsewhere, and IPv6 is the main example of something that _everyone_ might
> want, at some point. Most other wide-scale wants are wishy-washy terms,
> like "e-commerce" and "micropayments." (but strangely, not "security")
> 
> 'Course, the fact that they don't want it _yet_ is telling.
> 

they want it and they just assume it's for free:  i've been
calling it 'lego block design'

--
Boyd Roberts                                 boyd@psycho-basket-case.org

    But I doubt if our present system [U.S. Army] will produce such
    an individual.  They are too: _abrasive_, opinionated, undiplomatic,
    nonconformist, and effective.
    
        -- Colonel David H. Hackworth (U.S. Army, Ret.)

Re: [9fans] The IPv6 in Plan9

[pip]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 272 bytes --]

Not to be a spoil-sport, but OpenBSD has been shipping with IPv6 
support built-in for the last 2 releases. That said, I think Plan 9
is a much more enjoyable platform for experimentation, both for
prospective adopters of IPv6 and for protocol implementers.
-
pip


[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2469 bytes --]

From: Steve Kilbane <steve@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] The IPv6 in Plan9
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 08:14:11 +0200
Message-ID: <200008010714.IAA13373@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>

On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 11:14:54AM -0400, presotto@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote:
> 
> 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've sometimes wondered whether having an optional IPv6 stack would be a
good way to get further penetration of Plan 9 (or whatever OS you implement
it on): offering the box's functionality as a ready-made IPv6 backbone
system.

To increase the user base, users have to want something that they can't get
elsewhere, and IPv6 is the main example of something that _everyone_ might
want, at some point. Most other wide-scale wants are wishy-washy terms,
like "e-commerce" and "micropayments." (but strangely, not "security")

'Course, the fact that they don't want it _yet_ is telling.

steve

Re: [9fans] The IPv6 in Plan9

[pip]

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

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

Re: [9fans] The IPv6 in Plan9

[Boyd Roberts]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 275 bytes --]

ipv6?  can you say 'complete disaster' or 'unmitigated catastrophy?

--
Boyd Roberts                            boyd@psycho-basket-case.org

    ``I come over here to kill them cocksuckers, not work for 'em''

          -- Moon Dog, _Pettibone's Law_, John Keene



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 928 bytes --]

[9fans] The IPv6 in Plan9

[Gu Qin]

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