Re: [Legba2013] Network inventory (ipv6)

[Peter S. <pe...@st...>]

John Gilmore wrote:
> > 1. I'm not sure that everyone is as comfortable with v6 as with v4
> >    (I type 192.168. quite a lot faster than a v6 prefix)
> 
> People who use numeric IP addresses for production systems clearly
> don't understand DNS.  I can teach a DNS class if desired.

Papa Legba isn't really a production system.. :) Maybe next year!

I think a DNS class at camp could be fun. I built and ran a registrar
for a decade and a half so I might be able to assist.


> > 4. v6 needs a little bit more infrastructure than v4
> >    (BM is not the place to introduce avoidable dependencies)
> 
> I think v6 needs exactly the same infrastructure as v4.  It's just
> a different packet format on the wire or on the air.  What extra do
> you think it needs?

I had RA configuration in mind. Could use DHCP, but see 1. A few more
question marks to straighten out. Not what operation at BM needs.


> > 5. We didn't run v6 last year
> 
> I bet you say that every year!

I will, and I think it's a good reason because I don't see BM as
deployment of a production system but as a field test, and the thing
that should be tested is not how well our people and software can
do IPv6 - because testing that doesn't require a cell phone network
covering a city of 50.000 built in two days in the desert.


> There's a more important question though, which is: Does our software
> fully support running on IPv6?  Have we ever tested it running on
> IPv6?

Unsure, I guess no and no, which ties to all my reasons for prefering v4.


> I am happy to provide an IPv6 tunnel for testing

My priorities for the operations network can certainly change, and if
$many want to run v6-only then let's run v6-only, but I honestly don't
see the point.


> One plus of using a native IPv6 network would be avoiding a lot of
> neighbors trying to get on the network.  If it doesn't offer IPv4
> DHCP then few of them will succeed, and the ones who do will be the
> more tech-savvy neighbors.

You might be surprised by how hard both Windows and Mac OS X tries to
use v6. Windows Mobile too, even on packet data. I didn't look at iOS.

In any case, I don't want "the network" which neighbors can get on,
I really do want to separate operations from the neighborly wifi.


//Peter