Re: Software and IPv6
Re: Software and IPv6
- Subject: Re: Software and IPv6
- From: Ragnar Sundblad <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 00:25:07 +0200
(This issue should probably rather be discussed on for example
email@hidden.)
On 6 Mon, 5 Jun 2006 23:06:32 -0400, Andr?-John Mas
<email@hidden> wrote:
Hi,
IPv6 seems to be today's Y2K issue: the problem seems so far away
that only
a handful of organisation bother spending their time dealing with the
issue.
I just have to answer this, since I really don't agree with that.
Most major OS:es have supported it for a long time, and for a while
even the big network equipment makers have support for it (outside of
e.g. Japan, where the local network equipment makers have supported
it for quite a while now, since several parts of the world outside
US and the Western Europe need ipv6 and use it).
I notice much in the way of software seems still to be IPv4 centric,
even
the new ones.
I can't think of anything on Mac OS X, and therefore I assume in
Darwin, that is not ipv6 savvy. Much open source software works
quite well too. Are you talking about other vendors' software?
In that case, sure, there is plenty. If you need ipv6 support in it,
do yourself and the world a favor and tell their customer
relations! :-)
Other than QA, are there any development issues that would
prevent people from making their software IPv6 ready?
Well, since there are so many programs out there that work
perfectly well with ipv6, it is hard to think of any real show
stoppers.
Are the code
snippets
available from Apple or elsewhere that show developers how to make
hybrid
IPv4/IPv6 software?
Don't know, but there should be plenty on the web for the POSIX
interfaces, and also the open source software from Apple/Darwin.
For the higher level Apple specific interfaces, the format of those
headers and addresses shouldn't matter, and any code snippets
should be for any protocol.
Also, what solutions are there to making IPv4 software work on an IPv6
centric LAN? I am thinking dual addresses or tunnels are probably the
way to go, but I just want a second opinion.
I don't know what you mean with "dual addresses", but "dual stack",
or as you may call it, ipv4 and 6 in parallel, on those hosts that
supports it, is a very common way to go. Just let the v4 only stuff
stay v4 only and phase it out sooner or later.
If your routers doesn't route (or bridge) ipv4, v4 won't traverse
routers,
and if you want it routed (or bridged) anyway you will have to set up
routers (or bridges), with or without tunnels depending on the
situation.
Of you are thinking about those v4<->v6 gateway ideas, they seem to have
pretty much vanished now, and IMHO that is good and well.
Of course, there still is 6to4 (run v6 with v4 as carrier), and most
level4-and-up services as mail gateways, DNS servers, http proxies and
similar services will just mix and match v4 and v6 (and possibly other
protocols), and that is in many situations as much of a v4<->v6 gateway
as you both need and want.
/ragge
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden