Do we need more ipv6 servers?

prefect · Postby **prefect** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:27 pm

It's always fun to play with new technology and it's a shame to let some few kiddies ruin the fun for everyone else (doesn't ircd-hybrid 7.x and ircd-ratbox support CIDR k/d-lines now?).

As I'm one of the fortunate few who has IPv6 native from my isp both at work and home, more EFnet servers supporting IPv6 is a good thing in my book.

nitedog · Postby **nitedog** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 9:03 am

feh

IPv6 is still too useless in my book for anything other then a "toy", or something to play with when you have no real work/things to do.

then again, i have been in this conversation close to a million times, and every single time it ends with someone saying "just you wait, someday....IPv6 is gonna be BIG! more then 10 places will actully have support for it!"

after literally years of waiting, I have decided that IPv6 is still never going to catch on, and it is going to stay nothing more then a toy.

adding v6 servers to efnet is a mixed blessing. sure it is nice to have more servers...even toy servers, but having more normal servers would be better in the long run.

Manta · Postby **Manta** » Mon Nov 03, 2003 9:38 pm

i am always been for having more ipv6 efnet servers. but
i have to admit i am not seening much of a point as it is now.

as i have always said its not the admins problem that there is alot of abuse.
but there should be better cooperation and communication between the ipv6 tunnel brokers and the efnet admins. this is to have a possibility to kill the tunnels when there is abuse. and, there are ALOT of different ipv6 tunnel brokers, i know. but my opinion is that there should be made a list, so that the efnet admins should be able to know WHO the admin of the tunnel broker that has given that ipv6 adresses to the abuser.

only way to still allow ipv6 on efnet, and fight the abuse. the other choice is to just shut down the ipv6 efnet servers :(

petrucci · Postby **petrucci** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 10:55 am

it's just that the majority of people on ipv6 don't use it to try out new technology. Rather just an easy way to have lots of fancy hostnames.

I just don't see why we/you/admins should put work into bringing lots of ipv6 servers onto efnet when the group of users are so "limited"

But i actually do hail to those who do USE ipv6 for something else than cool hostnames. I'm all for that, but it's not the way it's being used atm..

HM2K · Postby **HM2K** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 6:30 pm

I agree with petrucci, though with EFnet more is always better, i mean we DO have the most egotistical users and opers in the world (I have no source for this YET...)

Hwy · Postby **Hwy** » Thu Nov 20, 2003 9:56 pm

EFnet simply doesn't have a lot of Asian users (primarily .jp). Some of those countries and ISP's already use native IPv6 extensively due to the lack of IPv4 addresses available.

nitedog · Postby **nitedog** » Sun Nov 23, 2003 2:35 am

Hwy wrote:EFnet simply doesn't have a lot of Asian users (primarily .jp). Some of those countries and ISP's already use native IPv6 extensively due to the lack of IPv4 addresses available.

lack of ipv4 addresses in the east? someone tell that to the millions of mail relays that they have for spam

HM2K · Postby **HM2K** » Sun Nov 23, 2003 4:28 pm

Someone get onto ircadmin@lightning.net and get he.net to link up an ipv6 server :p I mean they ARE actually a tunneler... wouldn't it make sense? If the tunnelers arn't even prepared to do it, why should anyone else?

Hardy what do you mean by network? surly not an irc network? do you have any further details of this?

PS. Thanks for the detailed responce wundr

sealie · Postby **sealie** » Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:13 am

HM2K wrote:Someone get onto ircadmin@lightning.net and get he.net to link up an ipv6 server :p I mean they ARE actually a tunneler... wouldn't it make sense? If the tunnelers arn't even prepared to do it, why should anyone else?

Hardy what do you mean by network? surly not an irc network? do you have any further details of this?

PS. Thanks for the detailed responce wundr

They also filtered/disallowed IRC on their free tunnelbroker (I don't know about the native address spaces) In other words, I highly doubt that they would ever go this far as you are saying. And according to HE.net staff - no it doesn't make sense

HM2K · Postby **HM2K** » Mon Nov 24, 2003 2:15 pm

Hmmm, I didn't know that, very interesting... maybe one of the others... if ipng.org.uk was up that would be cool, another uk server ipv4 or ipv6 would be cool, lol.

I think I take back what I said earlier, as it stands EFnet servers are dropping like flys, so I guess as it stands its the more servers the better at the moment...

evil · Postby **evil** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:34 am

I would like to see more ipv6 servers. At the time of writing this homelien is very unstable and lags a lot, I know it could be some routing issue between me and homelien. efnet.bit.nl never lets me on. So at the "moment" I can only use efnet.ipv6.xs4all.nl. And by the way, I'm not a hacker, packet kiddie, or hiding. I am curious and use ipv6 as a personal eductional tool since it will be the standard.

HM2K · Postby **HM2K** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 5:54 pm

Wow, talk about bringing up old topics...

Anyway I don't think its so much of a case of needing ipv6 servers, as more of a case of getting more ipv6 servers. I mean if I was a large ISP willing to "waste" large amounts of bw on IRC, I would certainly not go down the route of ipv6, ipv4 all the way

ipv6 still hasn't established itself well enough yet...

Enjoy.

prefect · Postby **prefect** » Thu Feb 05, 2004 7:45 pm

evil wrote:I would like to see more ipv6 servers. At the time of writing this homelien is very unstable and lags a lot, I know it could be some routing issue between me and homelien. efnet.bit.nl never lets me on. So at the "moment" I can only use efnet.ipv6.xs4all.nl. And by the way, I'm not a hacker, packet kiddie, or hiding. I am curious and use ipv6 as a personal eductional tool since it will be the standard.

I've been disconnected to homelien _twice_ and I've been using their IPv6 server since before they linked to EFnet. (Did some testing)

If you got a problem it's you/your tunnelbrokers/somewhere in between.

wundr · Postby **wundr** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 4:59 am

prefect wrote: I've been disconnected to homelien _twice_ and I've been using their IPv6 server since before they linked to EFnet. (Did some testing)

If you got a problem it's you/your tunnelbrokers/somewhere in between.

iirc, you have IPv6 directly from the same ISP that hosts irc.homelien.no, correct? With what is basically a local connection, of course you aren't going to get disconnected very often.

HM2K wrote: I mean if I was a large ISP willing to "waste" large amounts of bw on IRC, I would certainly not go down the route of ipv6, ipv4 all the way

If I was a large ISP, I think I would rather have an IPv6 server to lessen attacks on it. that is, an IPv6-ONLY server, so that the IPv4 IP of the machine or IPv4 IPs on the same network aren't known as readily so that they won't be attacked. Then again, I wonder if an IPv6-only server would be voted onto the network in the first place...

Postby **Hardy** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 8:26 am

HM2K wrote:Wow, talk about bringing up old topics...

Anyway I don't think its so much of a case of needing ipv6 servers, as more of a case of getting more ipv6 servers. I mean if I was a large ISP willing to "waste" large amounts of bw on IRC, I would certainly not go down the route of ipv6, ipv4 all the way

ipv6 still hasn't established itself well enough yet...

Enjoy.

I would like to see more servers thats allready linked or applying in the future to support both protocols rather then allowing a ipv6 only server.

Aslong as the server restricts ipv6 connections as good as they can i dont think it will cause that much more abuse. IPv6 is still in the start pit and if we can help them getting it more popular by providing a service with it then why not.

Do we need more ipv6 servers?

maybe

Who is online