On Thu, 15 May 2025 18:42:47 +0000, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote in ><pan$e6d88$f019cb49$2e3cccf9$253bfbf1@linux.rocks>:
GNU/Linux has total IPv6 capabilities but this is also fully
configurable.
Since I operate a standalone workstation that is only connected to the
Internet via Comcast, my system and software configuration only includes
IPv4. (My local network certainly does not require it.)
IOW, I don't need IPv6 and therefore I exclude it.
Does anybody use or need IPv6?
I suppose that since the vast majority of GNU/Linux users depend on a
distro and that since most distros automatically enable IPv6 the answer
is that most users have IPv6 enabled whether they need it or not.
(It's considered good netiquette to announce a followup-to when
crossposting. Please consider doing that in the future.)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _--
$ ping -c 1 news.eternal-september.org
PING news.eternal-september.org (2a01:4f9:4b:44c2::2) 56 data bytes
64 bytes from news.eternal-september.org (2a01:4f9:4b:44c2::2): icmp_seq=1 >ttl=47 time=174 ms
--- news.eternal-september.org ping statistics ---
1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 174.342/174.342/174.342/0.000 ms
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
IPv6 is the future. I think more and more people are using it,
since their equipment and clients "just work" with it.
(There is a learning curve, though -- but there was with IPv4 too.)
GNU/Linux has total IPv6 capabilities but this is also fully
configurable.
Since I operate a standalone workstation that is only connected
to the Internet via Comcast, my system and software configuration
only includes IPv4. (My local network certainly does not require
it.)
IOW, I don't need IPv6 and therefore I exclude it.
Does anybody use or need IPv6?
I suppose that since the vast majority of GNU/Linux users depend
on a distro and that since most distros automatically enable
IPv6 the answer is that most users have IPv6 enabled whether they
need it or not.
IPv6 is the future.
[apologies for falling into the Troll's Followup-To trap]
Answers to my article in the advocacy group will not be read.
Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:
GNU/Linux has total IPv6 capabilities but this is also fully
configurable.
Since I operate a standalone workstation that is only connected
to the Internet via Comcast, my system and software configuration
only includes IPv4. (My local network certainly does not require
it.)
IOW, I don't need IPv6 and therefore I exclude it.
That is a stupid idea. Your ISP might finally gain some clue and
finally enable IPv6 after it has been mandatory on the Internet for a
decade.
Does anybody use or need IPv6?
North America is cursed with ample IPv4 resources. Not all continents
have that "luxury" of not being forced off an obsolete proto that
needs crutches to limp.
I suppose that since the vast majority of GNU/Linux users depend
on a distro and that since most distros automatically enable
IPv6 the answer is that most users have IPv6 enabled whether they
need it or not.
A host with IPv6 enabled has absolutely no disadvantages over a host
that has IPv6 deliberately disabled. IPv6 doesn't autoconfigure if the network doesn't offer it.
IPv6 allows me to reach any host on my local network directly from the network. I use this daily when I'm traveling or working at a different
site to access my infrastructure.
vallor wrote:
of course there is you have to know how to post in usenet
<snip>
My ISP did a beta test of IPv6. Something must have gone wrong, they
seem to have aborted and not deployed IPv6 to the public, except on
phones.
My ISP did a beta test of IPv6. Something must have gone wrong, they
seem to have aborted and not deployed IPv6 to the public, except on phones.
On Sun, 18 May 2025 11:12:56 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
My ISP did a beta test of IPv6. Something must have gone wrong, they
seem to have aborted and not deployed IPv6 to the public, except on
phones.
Shortly after IPv6 was supported by Windows Server one of our departments >configured it, possibly by mistake. They effectively isolated themselves
from the rest of the company, including the main servers. That got rolled >back quickly.
Perhaps the correct thing to do would have been to make it work company
wide but nobody is going to sign off on an expensive project to fix
something that ain't broken -- yet.
Since my internet connection is through Verizon wireless I have both IPv4
and IPv6 external addresses. They're transitory and while I can find out
what they are I don't have any need to know.
Even better, it looks like I'm in Montrose Colorado today.
The devices on the WiFi LAN also have IPv6 addresses along with IPv4.
However if I want to ssh, sftp, or vnc into one of them, I know and use
the IPv4 address.
Since my internet connection is through Verizon wireless I have both
IPv4 and IPv6 external addresses. They're transitory and while I can
find out what they are I don't have any need to know.
What is a transitory IPv6 address?
Even better, it looks like I'm in Montrose Colorado today.
Your ISP is stupid and didn't correctly register their IPv6 networks.
On Mon, 19 May 2025 08:11:28 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
Since my internet connection is through Verizon wireless I have both
IPv4 and IPv6 external addresses. They're transitory and while I can
find out what they are I don't have any need to know.
What is a transitory IPv6 address?
Verizon assigns an IP from their pool. If the wireless router reboots it
may or may not get the same apparent external address.
Even better, it looks like I'm in Montrose Colorado today.
Your ISP is stupid and didn't correctly register their IPv6 networks.
I'll say it again. slowly. Verizon wireless. Figure out how CGNAT works.
The edge server may be in Colorado or Utah. I've even seen Kansas. If I go
to a site like https://whatismyipaddress.com/ it's going to reflect where >the server is.
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-05-19 08:14, Marc Haber wrote:
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-05-18 05:45, c186282 wrote:
As for IPV6 ... my ISP doesn't use it. NO use at
all - so I disable it to prevent problems.
I don't have any problem with it enabled.
I think I had some issue years ago, bu I have forgotten about it.
that's how it's supposed to work. On the Internet Exchance Points, the
majority of traffic is IPv6 in these days.
It is my ISP who has a problem. They haven't said which, but my educated
guess is that many of the routers they installed are faulty. For
example, mine does not protect the LAN with a firewall on IPv6, all
machines are directly exposed.
I would only expect firewall functionality on a device that claims to
be a firewall. That being said, such functionality is vitally
important for an end user network.
Can you disable IPv6 on the router? That would be easier than doing so
on every device on the network, and also easier to revert should the
IPv6 support of your ISP become useable at some future point in time.
We are talking home users.
The ISP supplied router does many things.
Even the house phone is plugged into it.
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
We are talking home users.
So am I.
The ISP supplied router does many things.
Even the house phone is plugged into it.
I am deeply sorry that you Americans neither have decent ISPs nor can
you purchase decent routers.
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:But they have King Donald and the Lone Skunk!
We are talking home users.
So am I.
The ISP supplied router does many things.
Even the house phone is plugged into it.
I am deeply sorry that you Americans neither have decent ISPs nor can
you purchase decent routers.
Grüße
Marc
On 5/17/25 2:01 PM, vallor wrote:
IPv6 is the future.
fuck ip6
Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov> wrote:
On 5/17/25 2:01 PM, vallor wrote:
IPv6 is the future.
fuck ip6
This is a raging example how pseudonymous people say things that would
be unwise to say in a non-anonymous environment.
IPv6 is a protocol. It is a good one. It doesn't hurt anybody. Why
should it be "fucked"?
I think that this kind of hate should go a different way.
Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov> wrote:
On 5/17/25 2:01 PM, vallor wrote:
IPv6 is the future.
fuck ip6
This is a raging example how pseudonymous people say things that would
be unwise to say in a non-anonymous environment.
IPv6 is a protocol. It is a good one. It doesn't hurt anybody. Why
should it be "fucked"?
I think that this kind of hate should go a different way.
Well it is another apparent 'designed by comp scis to be as opaque as >possible with a hundred bells and whistles that no one will ever use'
On 20/05/2025 05:17, c186282 wrote:
But for NOW ... yea ... I disable IPV6. My ISP+1.
doesn't even do it, so why suffer the probs ?
Its so radically different that I cant be arsed to go through a learning >curve on something I don't need right now
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Well it is another apparent 'designed by comp scis to be as opaque as
possible with a hundred bells and whistles that no one will ever use'
You obviously have no clue about how RFCs are written.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 20/05/2025 05:17, c186282 wrote:
But for NOW ... yea ... I disable IPV6. My ISP+1.
doesn't even do it, so why suffer the probs ?
Its so radically different that I cant be arsed to go through a learning
curve on something I don't need right now
This is a really stupid stance.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 20/05/2025 09:00, Marc Haber wrote:
vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:Oh but it does, when you get ipV6 addresses returned by DNS and you cant
On Sun, 18 May 2025 10:02:22 +0200, Marc Haber
<mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote in <100c46e$3c1el$1@news1.tnib.de>: >>>>>> As for IPV6 ... my ISP doesn't use it. NO use at all - so I disable >>>>>> it to prevent problems.
That's a really stupid idea.
I suggest he enable it from time to time to see if the ISP
has got it working.
I suggest not disabling it in in the first place. It doesn't hurt when
it's unused and unconfigured.
reach them...
And where is the problem with that?
On 20/05/2025 11:14, Marc Haber wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:No. It is a thoroughly pragmatic stance.
On 20/05/2025 05:17, c186282 wrote:
But for NOW ... yea ... I disable IPV6. My ISP+1.
doesn't even do it, so why suffer the probs ?
Its so radically different that I cant be arsed to go through a learning >>> curve on something I don't need right now
This is a really stupid stance.
On 20/05/2025 11:15, Marc Haber wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:They are written by people who *like writing RFCs*.
Well it is another apparent 'designed by comp scis to be as opaque as
possible with a hundred bells and whistles that no one will ever use'
You obviously have no clue about how RFCs are written.
Nuff said!
On 2025-05-20 12:21, Marc Haber wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 20/05/2025 09:00, Marc Haber wrote:
vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:Oh but it does, when you get ipV6 addresses returned by DNS and you cant >>> reach them...
On Sun, 18 May 2025 10:02:22 +0200, Marc Haber
<mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote in <100c46e$3c1el$1@news1.tnib.de>: >>>>>>> As for IPV6 ... my ISP doesn't use it. NO use at all - so I disable >>>>>>> it to prevent problems.
That's a really stupid idea.
I suggest he enable it from time to time to see if the ISP
has got it working.
I suggest not disabling it in in the first place. It doesn't hurt when >>>> it's unused and unconfigured.
And where is the problem with that?
You don't understand. You want to access gmail, for instance. The
address resolves to some IPv6 and some IPv4 addresses, and your computer >tries to connect on the IPv6 addresses. The application shows an error: >address unreachable.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 20/05/2025 11:14, Marc Haber wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:No. It is a thoroughly pragmatic stance.
On 20/05/2025 05:17, c186282 wrote:
But for NOW ... yea ... I disable IPV6. My ISP+1.
doesn't even do it, so why suffer the probs ?
Its so radically different that I cant be arsed to go through a learning >>>> curve on something I don't need right now
This is a really stupid stance.
We need to agree to disagree here.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 20/05/2025 11:15, Marc Haber wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:They are written by people who *like writing RFCs*.
Well it is another apparent 'designed by comp scis to be as opaque as
possible with a hundred bells and whistles that no one will ever use'
You obviously have no clue about how RFCs are written.
Nuff said!
We have to thank those guys. They are wise and they brought us the
Internet.
The IPv6 RFC's main authors are a retired person from Cisco and the
Bell Labs and one active employee from Check Point Software. So far
"comp scis".
What have you done for the Internet?
but you can use a search engine to find those.
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-05-20 12:21, Marc Haber wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 20/05/2025 09:00, Marc Haber wrote:
vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:Oh but it does, when you get ipV6 addresses returned by DNS and you cant >>>> reach them...
On Sun, 18 May 2025 10:02:22 +0200, Marc Haber
<mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote in <100c46e$3c1el$1@news1.tnib.de>: >>>>>>>> As for IPV6 ... my ISP doesn't use it. NO use at all - so I disable
it to prevent problems.
That's a really stupid idea.
I suggest he enable it from time to time to see if the ISP
has got it working.
I suggest not disabling it in in the first place. It doesn't hurt when >>>>> it's unused and unconfigured.
And where is the problem with that?
You don't understand. You want to access gmail, for instance. The
address resolves to some IPv6 and some IPv4 addresses, and your computer
tries to connect on the IPv6 addresses. The application shows an error:
address unreachable.
Only that that is not the case.
On 20/05/2025 16:49, Marc Haber wrote:
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:Seen it happen.
On 2025-05-20 12:21, Marc Haber wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 20/05/2025 09:00, Marc Haber wrote:
vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:Oh but it does, when you get ipV6 addresses returned by DNS and you
On Sun, 18 May 2025 10:02:22 +0200, Marc Haber
<mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> wrote in
<100c46e$3c1el$1@news1.tnib.de>:
As for IPV6 ... my ISP doesn't use it. NO use at all - so >>>>>>>>> I disable
it to prevent problems.
That's a really stupid idea.
I suggest he enable it from time to time to see if the ISP
has got it working.
I suggest not disabling it in in the first place. It doesn't hurt
when
it's unused and unconfigured.
cant
reach them...
And where is the problem with that?
You don't understand. You want to access gmail, for instance. The
address resolves to some IPv6 and some IPv4 addresses, and your computer >>> tries to connect on the IPv6 addresses. The application shows an error:
address unreachable.
Only that that is not the case.
Consider that, for instance, this laptop has an IPv6 address:
cer@Isengard:~> ifconfig
eth0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet 192.168.1.16 netmask 255.255.0.0 broadcast 192.168.255.255
inet6 fc00::16 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x0<global>
inet6 fe80::4ecc:6aff:fe61:50a1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link>
ether 4c:cc:6a:61:50:a1 txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
...
So applications thought that IPv6 was available.
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
Consider that, for instance, this laptop has an IPv6 address:
cer@Isengard:~> ifconfig
eth0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet 192.168.1.16 netmask 255.255.0.0 broadcast 192.168.255.255 >> inet6 fc00::16 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x0<global>
inet6 fe80::4ecc:6aff:fe61:50a1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link> >> ether 4c:cc:6a:61:50:a1 txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
...
This laptop has an IPv6 link local address.
Btw, the GNU/Linux world has been using iproute2 for two decades now.
What does the IPv6 routing table of the system in question say?
So applications thought that IPv6 was available.
Tries to use it, gets a host unreachable, SHOULD¹ try again with the
next IP address associated with the target hostname, which might
happen to be IPv4, tries to use it, connects successfully.
Different behavior is a bug.
¹ in the RFC2119 sense
On 2025-05-20 19:43, Marc Haber wrote:
What does the IPv6 routing table of the system in question say?
I don't have a problem with the laptop currently. The problem was some
years ago, on several computers.
cer@Isengard:~> ip route
default via 192.168.1.1 dev eth0
192.168.0.0/16 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.16 >cer@Isengard:~>
So applications thought that IPv6 was available.
Tries to use it, gets a host unreachable, SHOULD¹ try again with the
next IP address associated with the target hostname, which might
happen to be IPv4, tries to use it, connects successfully.
Different behavior is a bug.
¹ in the RFC2119 sense
The gai change makes things go faster, by not trying IPv6 first.
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-05-20 19:43, Marc Haber wrote:
What does the IPv6 routing table of the system in question say?
I don't have a problem with the laptop currently. The problem was some
years ago, on several computers.
cer@Isengard:~> ip route
default via 192.168.1.1 dev eth0
192.168.0.0/16 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.16
cer@Isengard:~>
That is not the IPv6 routing table.
So applications thought that IPv6 was available.
Tries to use it, gets a host unreachable, SHOULD¹ try again with the
next IP address associated with the target hostname, which might
happen to be IPv4, tries to use it, connects successfully.
Different behavior is a bug.
¹ in the RFC2119 sense
The gai change makes things go faster, by not trying IPv6 first.
On a slow machine, about a millisecond, yes. That matters in high
performance computing, where professionals do the administration. It
does absolutely not matter on a personal workstation that spends 99 %
of its CPU cycles waiting for keystrokes anyway.
On 20/05/2025 08:59, Marc Haber wrote:
Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov> wrote:Well it is another apparent 'designed by comp scis to be as opaque as possible with a hundred bells and whistles that no one will ever use'
On 5/17/25 2:01 PM, vallor wrote:
IPv6 is the future.
fuck ip6
This is a raging example how pseudonymous people say things that would
be unwise to say in a non-anonymous environment.
IPv6 is a protocol. It is a good one. It doesn't hurt anybody. Why
should it be "fucked"?
I think that this kind of hate should go a different way.
As c186282 said. why not just prepend or append another '.000.'
On 2025-05-20 19:43, Marc Haber wrote:
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
Consider that, for instance, this laptop has an IPv6 address:
cer@Isengard:~> ifconfig
eth0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet 192.168.1.16 netmask 255.255.0.0 broadcast 192.168.255.255 >>> inet6 fc00::16 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x0<global>
inet6 fe80::4ecc:6aff:fe61:50a1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link> >>> ether 4c:cc:6a:61:50:a1 txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
...
This laptop has an IPv6 link local address.
I know. That one is automatic.
And also a given global address that I personally wrote.
If you don't have global IPv6 reachability, why have a global
address (bogus or otherwise)?
IPV4 = unexpectedly proved a bit inadequate
IPV6 = horrible overkill 'solution'
IPV5 ... my proposal ... maybe the best and
most transparent. Good for the next 50 years
fer-sure.
These are numbers HUMANS can read, remember, understand.
Don't know WHERE the IPV6 stuff was coming from - TOO tech
IMHO.
On 2025-05-20 23:14, Marc Haber wrote:
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-05-20 19:43, Marc Haber wrote:
What does the IPv6 routing table of the system in question say?
I don't have a problem with the laptop currently. The problem was some
years ago, on several computers.
cer@Isengard:~> ip route
default via 192.168.1.1 dev eth0
192.168.0.0/16 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.16
cer@Isengard:~>
That is not the IPv6 routing table.
That is all there is.
On a slow machine, about a millisecond, yes. That matters in high
performance computing, where professionals do the administration. It
does absolutely not matter on a personal workstation that spends 99 %
of its CPU cycles waiting for keystrokes anyway.
It is the network speed that matters, which is much slower.
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-05-20 23:14, Marc Haber wrote:
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-05-20 19:43, Marc Haber wrote:
What does the IPv6 routing table of the system in question say?
I don't have a problem with the laptop currently. The problem was some >>>> years ago, on several computers.
cer@Isengard:~> ip route
default via 192.168.1.1 dev eth0
192.168.0.0/16 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.16
cer@Isengard:~>
That is not the IPv6 routing table.
That is all there is.
The correct command is ip -6 route.
You don't have the most basic knowledge and still you feel yourself
qualified to judge about the protocol. That's Dunning-Kruger at work.
On a slow machine, about a millisecond, yes. That matters in high
performance computing, where professionals do the administration. It
does absolutely not matter on a personal workstation that spends 99 %
of its CPU cycles waiting for keystrokes anyway.
It is the network speed that matters, which is much slower.
There is zero evidence about IPv6 network speed being slower than IPv4
on a feature-par network.
Of course there are stupid ISPs who that send IPv6 on absurd detours.
Those need to be put out of business.
On Tue, 20 May 2025 19:52:26 +0200, "Carlos E. R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote in <m93tqqF8pgcU15@mid.individual.net>:
On 2025-05-20 19:43, Marc Haber wrote:
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
Consider that, for instance, this laptop has an IPv6 address:
cer@Isengard:~> ifconfig
eth0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet 192.168.1.16 netmask 255.255.0.0 broadcast 192.168.255.255
inet6 fc00::16 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x0<global>
inet6 fe80::4ecc:6aff:fe61:50a1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link>
ether 4c:cc:6a:61:50:a1 txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
...
This laptop has an IPv6 link local address.
I know. That one is automatic.
And also a given global address that I personally wrote.
I'm wondering what the purpose of the global address is?
If you don't have global IPv6 reachability, why have a global
address (bogus or otherwise)?
On 2025-05-21, Marc Haber wrote:
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-05-20 23:14, Marc Haber wrote:
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-05-20 19:43, Marc Haber wrote:
What does the IPv6 routing table of the system in question say?
I don't have a problem with the laptop currently. The problem was some >>>>> years ago, on several computers.
cer@Isengard:~> ip route
default via 192.168.1.1 dev eth0
192.168.0.0/16 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.16
cer@Isengard:~>
That is not the IPv6 routing table.
That is all there is.
The correct command is ip -6 route.
You don't have the most basic knowledge and still you feel yourself
qualified to judge about the protocol. That's Dunning-Kruger at work.
Yet you keep doing the same about judging people. That's hypocrisy at
work.
I was planning not to mention this, given I don't have much to recall,
but if you're going to insist on that aggressive approach, judging
people, taking a chance at bullying if someone dares to use ifconfig,
and at the same time asserting the problem doesn't exist, I don't think
I can afford not to comment.
On 5/20/25 5:37 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/05/2025 08:59, Marc Haber wrote:
Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov> wrote:Well it is another apparent 'designed by comp scis to be as opaque as
On 5/17/25 2:01 PM, vallor wrote:
IPv6 is the future.
fuck ip6
This is a raging example how pseudonymous people say things that would
be unwise to say in a non-anonymous environment.
IPv6 is a protocol. It is a good one. It doesn't hurt anybody. Why
should it be "fucked"?
I think that this kind of hate should go a different way.
possible with a hundred bells and whistles that no one will ever use'
As c186282 said. why not just prepend or append another '.000.'
Hey, it'd WORK - kinda smoothly.
Backwards compatibility kinda easy.
Also, the NUMBERS are things people can UNDERSTAND,
unlike all the long HEX crap in IPV6
IPV4 = unexpectedly proved a bit inadequate
IPV6 = horrible overkill 'solution'
IPV5 ... my proposal ... maybe the best and
most transparent. Good for the next 50 years
fer-sure.
On 2025-05-21, Marc Haber wrote:
You don't have the most basic knowledge and still you feel yourself
qualified to judge about the protocol. That's Dunning-Kruger at work.
Yet you keep doing the same about judging people. That's hypocrisy at
work.
There is zero evidence about IPv6 network speed being slower than IPv4
on a feature-par network.
Of course there are stupid ISPs who that send IPv6 on absurd detours.
Those need to be put out of business.
Can you provide evidence that such a delay will never happen without
broken routes? Or is it up to the implementation that asks for the
address?
While I don't recall details, I think I've seen and read about this
behaviour too. Only for one case with my computers do I remember it
being a stale route or assignment. For those back in the past I don't
recall much.
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-05-21, Marc Haber wrote:
You don't have the most basic knowledge and still you feel yourself
qualified to judge about the protocol. That's Dunning-Kruger at work.
Yet you keep doing the same about judging people. That's hypocrisy at
work.
I just expect people to have a basic education about a topic that they
want do discuss in public. That is necessary to have a discussion on eye-level¹.
I think that the local resolver should² also refrain from asking for
AAAA records if the local system doesn't have IPv6, but I don't know
whether this special-case handling is implemented at all. And I'm too
lazy to look that up.
But all this needs to be taken into account before someone can comment
about speed of one IP protocol compared to the other on a level that
is beyond passing myths.
vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
If you don't have global IPv6 reachability, why have a global
address (bogus or otherwise)?
So that you do not need to renumber when you eventually get connected.
There are more than enough IPv6 addresses to do it this way, this is
one of IPv6's major advantages.
Greetings
Marc
On 21.05.2025 14:00 Carlos E. R. wrote:
It just is a perceived fact. On some machines, if an application gets
back from the system a list of addresses to try, and tries IPv6 first
when there is no actual IPv6 internet connectivity, there is a small
delay waiting for the request to fail, and then try the next address
in the list.
This is a bug in the application. This also applies vice-versa if no
IPv4 connectivity exists (already does by default in certain cellular networks) and the application tries that.
It doesn't happen to me currently, so asking me to provide
information is pointless. But it has happened to me in the past. And
I know because the software complained of no route or something.
Which is the expected result for that. If that happens again,
investigate and file a bug report for the application.
It just is a perceived fact. On some machines, if an application gets
back from the system a list of addresses to try, and tries IPv6 first
when there is no actual IPv6 internet connectivity, there is a small
delay waiting for the request to fail, and then try the next address
in the list.
It doesn't happen to me currently, so asking me to provide
information is pointless. But it has happened to me in the past. And
I know because the software complained of no route or something.
We investigated, and was told to adjust gai.conf.
On 2025-05-21 13:16, Marc Haber wrote:
I think that the local resolver should² also refrain from asking for
AAAA records if the local system doesn't have IPv6, but I don't know
whether this special-case handling is implemented at all. And I'm too
lazy to look that up.
But all this needs to be taken into account before someone can comment
about speed of one IP protocol compared to the other on a level that
is beyond passing myths.
It just is a perceived fact. On some machines, if an application gets
back from the system a list of addresses to try, and tries IPv6 first
when there is no actual IPv6 internet connectivity, there is a small
delay waiting for the request to fail, and then try the next address in
the list.
On 2025-05-21 14:30, Marco Moock wrote:
On 21.05.2025 14:00 Carlos E. R. wrote:
It just is a perceived fact. On some machines, if an application
gets back from the system a list of addresses to try, and tries
IPv6 first when there is no actual IPv6 internet connectivity,
there is a small delay waiting for the request to fail, and then
try the next address in the list.
This is a bug in the application. This also applies vice-versa if no
IPv4 connectivity exists (already does by default in certain
cellular networks) and the application tries that.
It doesn't happen to me currently, so asking me to provide
information is pointless. But it has happened to me in the past.
And I know because the software complained of no route or
something.
Which is the expected result for that. If that happens again,
investigate and file a bug report for the application.
We investigated, and was told to adjust gai.conf.
His address is:
] inet6 fc00::16 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x0<global>
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-05-21 13:16, Marc Haber wrote:
I think that the local resolver should² also refrain from asking for
AAAA records if the local system doesn't have IPv6, but I don't know
whether this special-case handling is implemented at all. And I'm too
lazy to look that up.
But all this needs to be taken into account before someone can comment
about speed of one IP protocol compared to the other on a level that
is beyond passing myths.
It just is a perceived fact. On some machines, if an application gets
back from the system a list of addresses to try, and tries IPv6 first
when there is no actual IPv6 internet connectivity, there is a small
delay waiting for the request to fail, and then try the next address in
the list.
pcap/strace or it didn't happen.
Please note that _broken_ IPv6, for example when the router announces
an IPv6 but the network doesn't return a host unreachable ICMPv6
message from the place where connectivity is missing, will cause an IPv6-enabled application to wait for the time out. But that is an
error in the _network_ setup, and should not happen in the case where
the end system (the one with the application running) has v6 enabled
on a non-v6-enabled network.
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
IPV4 = unexpectedly proved a bit inadequate
totally inadequate.
IPV6 = horrible overkill 'solution'
I violently disagree.
It is IPv4 that needs overkill 'solutions' to be kept alive.
IPV5 ... my proposal ... maybe the best and
most transparent. Good for the next 50 years
fer-sure.
Horrible.
These are numbers HUMANS can read, remember, understand.
IP Adresses were never meant to be remembered or understood.
Don't know WHERE the IPV6 stuff was coming from - TOO tech
IMHO.
It is a sane, nicely designed, simple protocol with a lot of
flexibility that needs less worarounds that IPv4 does.
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
We investigated, and was told to adjust gai.conf.
Who ever gave you that advice most probably gave you a placebo, or
that happened a decade ago.
On 21.05.2025 14:45 Uhr Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2025-05-21 14:30, Marco Moock wrote:
On 21.05.2025 14:00 Carlos E. R. wrote:
It just is a perceived fact. On some machines, if an application
gets back from the system a list of addresses to try, and tries
IPv6 first when there is no actual IPv6 internet connectivity,
there is a small delay waiting for the request to fail, and then
try the next address in the list.
This is a bug in the application. This also applies vice-versa if no
IPv4 connectivity exists (already does by default in certain
cellular networks) and the application tries that.
It doesn't happen to me currently, so asking me to provide
information is pointless. But it has happened to me in the past.
And I know because the software complained of no route or
something.
Which is the expected result for that. If that happens again,
investigate and file a bug report for the application.
We investigated, and was told to adjust gai.conf.
Then there is a general problem - either on your system or in the
application if it occurs only there.
We are talking about how a system with both IPv4 and IPv6 enabled
behaves on an IPv4-only network. Such a system will not have IPv6
routes going further than the automatically established link-local
networks and thus any attempts to use IPv6 will immediately result in
the network stack returning a "no route to host" error message.
A well behaved application is then expected to try the next IP address
it might know for the desired communications partner. This applies to
both IPv4 and IPv6. Sadly I don't know at the moment whether this functionality is implemented in the network stack of whether the
application is expected to implement the necessary logic.
The suggested gai.conf change will, by the way, also only hit at this
stage, just pulling IPv4 in front of IPv6. Most IPv6 averse people who
are looking for reasons to disable it say that it slows down DNS, and
even IF they're right, the gai.conf change doesnt affect this part of commnunication.
When I am talking about gai.conf here, I actually mean the in-kernel
address label table that is maintained by virtue of the ip addrlabel
command. Most modern Linux distributions only have gai.conf as kind of
a legacy interface that is not necessarily connected at all to the
in-kernel table that the kernel actually uses. I don't know if and
which distributions have code that reads gai.conf and uses the
contents to initialize the in-kernel table at startup time, since my
systems directly interface with ip addrlabel (often via
systemd-networkd).
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-05-20 23:14, Marc Haber wrote:
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-05-20 19:43, Marc Haber wrote:
What does the IPv6 routing table of the system in question say?
I don't have a problem with the laptop currently. The problem was some >>>> years ago, on several computers.
cer@Isengard:~> ip route
default via 192.168.1.1 dev eth0
192.168.0.0/16 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.16
cer@Isengard:~>
That is not the IPv6 routing table.
That is all there is.
The correct command is ip -6 route.
You don't have the most basic knowledge and still you feel yourself
qualified to judge about the protocol. That's Dunning-Kruger at work.
On a slow machine, about a millisecond, yes. That matters in high
performance computing, where professionals do the administration. It
does absolutely not matter on a personal workstation that spends 99 %
of its CPU cycles waiting for keystrokes anyway.
It is the network speed that matters, which is much slower.
There is zero evidence about IPv6 network speed being slower than IPv4
on a feature-par network.
Of course there are stupid ISPs who that send IPv6 on absurd detours.
Those need to be put out of business.
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-05-21 13:16, Marc Haber wrote:
I think that the local resolver should² also refrain from asking for
AAAA records if the local system doesn't have IPv6, but I don't know
whether this special-case handling is implemented at all. And I'm too
lazy to look that up.
But all this needs to be taken into account before someone can comment
about speed of one IP protocol compared to the other on a level that
is beyond passing myths.
It just is a perceived fact. On some machines, if an application gets
back from the system a list of addresses to try, and tries IPv6 first
when there is no actual IPv6 internet connectivity, there is a small
delay waiting for the request to fail, and then try the next address in
the list.
pcap/strace or it didn't happen.
Please note that _broken_ IPv6, for example when the router announces
an IPv6 but the network doesn't return a host unreachable ICMPv6
message from the place where connectivity is missing, will cause an IPv6-enabled application to wait for the time out. But that is an
error in the _network_ setup, and should not happen in the case where
the end system (the one with the application running) has v6 enabled
on a non-v6-enabled network.
On 21/05/2025 15:52, Marc Haber wrote:
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:Sure. Its always *somebody elses* problem.
On 2025-05-21 13:16, Marc Haber wrote:
I think that the local resolver should² also refrain from asking for
AAAA records if the local system doesn't have IPv6, but I don't know
whether this special-case handling is implemented at all. And I'm too
lazy to look that up.
But all this needs to be taken into account before someone can comment >>>> about speed of one IP protocol compared to the other on a level that
is beyond passing myths.
It just is a perceived fact. On some machines, if an application gets
back from the system a list of addresses to try, and tries IPv6 first
when there is no actual IPv6 internet connectivity, there is a small
delay waiting for the request to fail, and then try the next address in
the list.
pcap/strace or it didn't happen.
Please note that _broken_ IPv6, for example when the router announces
an IPv6 but the network doesn't return a host unreachable ICMPv6
message from the place where connectivity is missing, will cause an
IPv6-enabled application to wait for the time out. But that is an
error in the _network_ setup, and should not happen in the case where
the end system (the one with the application running) has v6 enabled
on a non-v6-enabled network.
IVP6 comes from having too many web sites to fit in IVP4.
If you pay attention to the larger picture you might know that. That
the protocol has not been properly instituted everywhere it should
have been is not the fault of the designers but of people who learned
IVP4 and think nothing better can come along.
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes:
We are talking about how a system with both IPv4 and IPv6 enabled
behaves on an IPv4-only network. Such a system will not have IPv6
routes going further than the automatically established link-local
networks and thus any attempts to use IPv6 will immediately result in
the network stack returning a "no route to host" error message.
A well behaved application is then expected to try the next IP address
it might know for the desired communications partner. This applies to
both IPv4 and IPv6. Sadly I don't know at the moment whether this
functionality is implemented in the network stack of whether the
application is expected to implement the necessary logic.
Destination addresses are selected in userland. getaddrinfo() is the
standard implementation, returning an ordered list of destination
addresses corresponding to the requested name. The application is
expected to work through them in order.
When I am talking about gai.conf here, I actually mean the in-kernel
address label table that is maintained by virtue of the ip addrlabel
command. Most modern Linux distributions only have gai.conf as kind of
a legacy interface that is not necessarily connected at all to the
in-kernel table that the kernel actually uses. I don't know if and
which distributions have code that reads gai.conf and uses the
contents to initialize the in-kernel table at startup time, since my
systems directly interface with ip addrlabel (often via
systemd-networkd).
AFAICS for destination address selection getaddrinfo() follows gai.conf
(and ignores ip-addrlabel). So I think you have conflated source and >destination address selection here.
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Destination addresses are selected in userland. getaddrinfo() is the
standard implementation, returning an ordered list of destination
addresses corresponding to the requested name. The application is
expected to work through them in order.
So it is actually a well behaved application that should do that.
Thanks for the correction. I don't develop enough software to know
that (and I do sincerely hope that there is a python module that
solves this issue for me should I ever need it).
On 2025-05-21 08:05, Marc Haber wrote:
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-05-20 23:14, Marc Haber wrote:
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-05-20 19:43, Marc Haber wrote:
What does the IPv6 routing table of the system in question say?
I don't have a problem with the laptop currently. The problem was some >>>>> years ago, on several computers.
cer@Isengard:~> ip route
default via 192.168.1.1 dev eth0
192.168.0.0/16 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.16
cer@Isengard:~>
That is not the IPv6 routing table.
That is all there is.
The correct command is ip -6 route.
You don't have the most basic knowledge and still you feel yourself
qualified to judge about the protocol. That's Dunning-Kruger at work.
I don't have IPv6, I don't have to remember IPv6 related commands.
cer@Laicolasse:~> ip -6 route
fe80::/64 dev wlan0 proto kernel metric 1024 pref medium
cer@Laicolasse:~>
On a slow machine, about a millisecond, yes. That matters in high
performance computing, where professionals do the administration. It
does absolutely not matter on a personal workstation that spends 99 %
of its CPU cycles waiting for keystrokes anyway.
It is the network speed that matters, which is much slower.
There is zero evidence about IPv6 network speed being slower than IPv4
on a feature-par network.
That is not what happened, and not what I said.
Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
IVP6 comes from having too many web sites to fit in IVP4.
No. THAT issue has been solved with name-based virtual hosting and
SNI. Which is too bad since it decreases the pressure to get rid of
v4.
If you pay attention to the larger picture you might know that. That
the protocol has not been properly instituted everywhere it should
have been is not the fault of the designers but of people who learned
IVP4 and think nothing better can come along.
And it is the fault of the persons who are SO acquainted with the
crutches that v4 needs to limp ahead that they actually think that a
protocol that doesn't need THESE¹ crutches is crippled.
Greetings
Marc
¹ I am not saying that IPv6 is the best protocol ever but it's the
best we've got at the moment.
On 2025-05-21 16:52, Marc Haber wrote:
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-05-21 13:16, Marc Haber wrote:
I think that the local resolver should? also refrain from asking for
AAAA records if the local system doesn't have IPv6, but I don't know
whether this special-case handling is implemented at all. And I'm too
lazy to look that up.
But all this needs to be taken into account before someone can comment >>>> about speed of one IP protocol compared to the other on a level that
is beyond passing myths.
It just is a perceived fact. On some machines, if an application gets
back from the system a list of addresses to try, and tries IPv6 first
when there is no actual IPv6 internet connectivity, there is a small
delay waiting for the request to fail, and then try the next address in
the list.
pcap/strace or it didn't happen.
Asking for a trace _now_ is ridiculous. It certainly did happen, and to
to several people. Years ago.
Please note that _broken_ IPv6, for example when the router announces
an IPv6 but the network doesn't return a host unreachable ICMPv6
message from the place where connectivity is missing, will cause an
IPv6-enabled application to wait for the time out. But that is an
error in the _network_ setup, and should not happen in the case where
the end system (the one with the application running) has v6 enabled
on a non-v6-enabled network.
On 2025-05-21, Marc Haber wrote:
Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
IVP6 comes from having too many web sites to fit in IVP4.
No. THAT issue has been solved with name-based virtual hosting and
SNI. Which is too bad since it decreases the pressure to get rid of
v4.
Here the IPv4 problem is not websites, but hosts/nodes/devices. IPv4
only survives because of NAT.
IPv6 seems to make it quite easy to get non-local addresses. At least
when properly deployed.
¹ I am not saying that IPv6 is the best protocol ever but it's the
best we've got at the moment.
What would be a good description/introduction/... in textual form of
IPv6 to introduce people to the way it's intended to be used? Stuff like >mentioning address scopes, RAs, DHCP, multicast...
Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-05-21 16:52, Marc Haber wrote:
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-05-21 13:16, Marc Haber wrote:
I think that the local resolver should? also refrain from asking for >>>>> AAAA records if the local system doesn't have IPv6, but I don't know >>>>> whether this special-case handling is implemented at all. And I'm too >>>>> lazy to look that up.
But all this needs to be taken into account before someone can comment >>>>> about speed of one IP protocol compared to the other on a level that >>>>> is beyond passing myths.
It just is a perceived fact. On some machines, if an application gets
back from the system a list of addresses to try, and tries IPv6 first
when there is no actual IPv6 internet connectivity, there is a small
delay waiting for the request to fail, and then try the next address in >>>> the list.
pcap/strace or it didn't happen.
Asking for a trace _now_ is ridiculous. It certainly did happen, and to
to several people. Years ago.
Looks like it was only last year when I encountered package list
downloads failing in Aptitude on an IPv4-only VPS due to it trying
to connect on IPv6.
Disabling IPv6 on there made perfect sense - it's intended to be a
stable system, not a testing ground for applications. I knew IPv6
wasn't available, and I'd seen such behaviour before in an
unimportant program on another system, so really it's my fault for
leaving the door open to such bugs by pointlessly leaving the
kernel's IPv6 support enabled.
Please note that _broken_ IPv6, for example when the router announces
an IPv6 but the network doesn't return a host unreachable ICMPv6
message from the place where connectivity is missing, will cause an
IPv6-enabled application to wait for the time out. But that is an
error in the _network_ setup, and should not happen in the case where
the end system (the one with the application running) has v6 enabled
on a non-v6-enabled network.
But if that network error has been made, you'll avoid trouble if
IPv6 is disabled. So if you know IPv6 isn't available anyway,
there's a clear advantage to disabling it in the kernel and dodging
these potential sources of failure even if they "should not
happen".
Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-05-21 16:52, Marc Haber wrote:
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-05-21 13:16, Marc Haber wrote:
I think that the local resolver should? also refrain from asking for >>>>> AAAA records if the local system doesn't have IPv6, but I don't know >>>>> whether this special-case handling is implemented at all. And I'm too >>>>> lazy to look that up.
But all this needs to be taken into account before someone can comment >>>>> about speed of one IP protocol compared to the other on a level that >>>>> is beyond passing myths.
It just is a perceived fact. On some machines, if an application gets
back from the system a list of addresses to try, and tries IPv6 first
when there is no actual IPv6 internet connectivity, there is a small
delay waiting for the request to fail, and then try the next address in >>>> the list.
pcap/strace or it didn't happen.
Asking for a trace _now_ is ridiculous. It certainly did happen, and to
to several people. Years ago.
Looks like it was only last year when I encountered package list
downloads failing in Aptitude on an IPv4-only VPS due to it trying
to connect on IPv6.
On 2025-05-22 01:10, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
Looks like it was only last year when I encountered package list
downloads failing in Aptitude on an IPv4-only VPS due to it trying
to connect on IPv6.
Now that you say it, there were several people on openSUSE complaining
of a similar problem with updates. So zypper and YaST. Years ago, not >recently.
On 20/05/2025 16:47, Marc Haber wrote:
What have you done for the Internet?
I rolled it out across the UK
Built the first UK web server, and the biggest UK mail server.
Installed Internet in the Channel Islands
I didnt have time for any RFCs.
On Tue, 20 May 2025 10:37:46 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
... why not just prepend or append another '.000.'
Can’t be done.
... why not just prepend or append another '.000.'
On 6/25/25 2:56 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 10:37:46 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
... why not just prepend or append another '.000.'
Can’t be done.
Can EASILY be done.
On 25.06.2025 03:13 c186282 c186282 wrote:
On 6/25/25 2:56 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 10:37:46 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
... why not just prepend or append another '.000.'
Can’t be done.
Can EASILY be done.
Simply bullshit.
It is my ISP who has a problem. They haven't said which, but my educated guess is that many of the routers they installed are faulty. For
example, mine does not protect the LAN with a firewall on IPv6, all
machines are directly exposed.
On 25.06.2025 03:13 c186282 c186282 wrote:
On 6/25/25 2:56 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 10:37:46 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
... why not just prepend or append another '.000.'
Can’t be done.
Can EASILY be done.
Simply bullshit. The address field is exactly 32 bits long and that
means it can't be simply extended. Devices and software expect it to be exactly that long and will read and process 32 bits.
Consider that, for instance, this laptop has an IPv6 address:
inet6 fc00::16 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x0<global>
inet6 fe80::4ecc:6aff:fe61:50a1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link> ...
So applications thought that IPv6 was available.
On Mon, 19 May 2025 12:27:35 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
It is my ISP who has a problem. They haven't said which, but my educated
guess is that many of the routers they installed are faulty. For
example, mine does not protect the LAN with a firewall on IPv6, all
machines are directly exposed.
Why are you using an ISP-supplied router? I have always bought my own.
Even when I was on ADSL, I found a USB device (Conexant AccessRunner) for which you could get firmware that would run it as just a modem, not a
router, so I could connect it as an extra network interface on a Linux box and have that handle the routing. I just had to set it up as a PPP-over-
ATM connection.
Nowadays, with fibre, all the on-premise connections are Ethernet anyway, which makes things even easier.
On 6/25/25 2:56 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 10:37:46 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
... why not just prepend or append another '.000.'
Can’t be done.
Can EASILY be done.
On 6/25/25 4:05 AM, Marco Moock wrote:
On 25.06.2025 03:13 c186282 c186282 wrote:
On 6/25/25 2:56 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2025 10:37:46 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
... why not just prepend or append another '.000.'
Can’t be done.
Can EASILY be done.
Simply bullshit.
What ... can't think of a way to program that ?
Shame !
On 2025-06-25 10:42, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2025 12:27:35 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
It is my ISP who has a problem. They haven't said which, but my educated >>> guess is that many of the routers they installed are faulty. For
example, mine does not protect the LAN with a firewall on IPv6, all
machines are directly exposed.
Why are you using an ISP-supplied router? I have always bought my own.
Because the required (by the ISP) configuration to support
TV-over-fibre, telephone-over-fibre and internet is not published.
Even when I was on ADSL, I found a USB device (Conexant AccessRunner) for
which you could get firmware that would run it as just a modem, not a
router, so I could connect it as an extra network interface on a Linux box >> and have that handle the routing. I just had to set it up as a PPP-over-
ATM connection.
On 2025-06-25, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2025-06-25 10:42, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2025 12:27:35 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
It is my ISP who has a problem. They haven't said which, but my educated >>>> guess is that many of the routers they installed are faulty. For
example, mine does not protect the LAN with a firewall on IPv6, all
machines are directly exposed.
Why are you using an ISP-supplied router? I have always bought my own.
Because the required (by the ISP) configuration to support
TV-over-fibre, telephone-over-fibre and internet is not published.
So what you have is an ONT for GPON?
I'd guess TV wouldn't be a configuration, but just EDFA? I don't really
know details of how that is implemented, but I'd think adding any sort
of configuration to it would complicate it beyond just amplifying the
signal?
Even when I was on ADSL, I found a USB device (Conexant AccessRunner) for >>> which you could get firmware that would run it as just a modem, not a
router, so I could connect it as an extra network interface on a Linux box >>> and have that handle the routing. I just had to set it up as a PPP-over- >>> ATM connection.
Heh, I ended up going the other direction when I had ADSL, I tried to
obtain a third-party modem-router so that I'd not have to deal with an
USB modem device (what the ISP offered) connected to a computer as a peripheral, but rather just plug 8P8C to it and have it handle the WAN connection itself.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 162:54:30 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,508 |