Do we need more ipv6 servers?

Postby **Hardy** » Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:54 pm

Right now efnet has 3 ipv6 servers. efnet.ipv6.xs4all.nl is a dedicated one while irc.homelien.no and irc.efnet.nl are combined ipv4 and ipv6.

Seen from stats there is currenctly ~600 clients connected with broken dns on ipv6, and most likely ~1000-2000 more with working hostnames.

Do you think efnet should expand with more ipv6-servers to have more coverage for those who wants to test out and use this new technology, or should we just wait until its more common so we dont risk more abuse then there allways is with all those adresses that can connect.

How do you feel ?

-wassup- · Postby **-wassup-** » Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:38 pm

i personally think we should leave it at ipv4. i mean more people use it and ipv6 is the latest, not many people use it. its also not really standard. it will take a few years to sink in. so i think having ipv6 for those people that really want it on a few servers is good but let the majority stay with ipv4.

btw - what do you mean by broken dns?

bobjuh · Postby **bobjuh** » Sat Oct 25, 2003 9:37 pm

-wassup- wrote:i personally think we should leave it at ipv4. i mean more people use it and ipv6 is the latest, not many people use it. its also not really standard. it will take a few years to sink in. so i think having ipv6 for those people that really want it on a few servers is good but let the majority stay with ipv4.

btw - what do you mean by broken dns?

With broken dns he means ipv6 host that doesn't resolve.

There are more and more users using ipv6. Thin it would be good to have more servers that allow ipv4 and ipv6

tabarnac · Postby **tabarnac** » Sun Oct 26, 2003 1:14 am

Hardy wrote:Right now efnet has 3 ipv6 servers. efnet.ipv6.xs4all.nl is a dedicated one while irc.homelien.no and irc.efnet.nl are combined ipv4 and ipv6.

What happened with irc.aloha.net's IPv6 service ?

Hardy wrote: Do you think efnet should expand with more ipv6-servers to have more coverage for those who wants to test out and use this new technology, or should we just wait until its more common so we dont risk more abuse then there allways is with all those adresses that can connect.

How do you feel ?

Right now, It's a PITA to use a shell with IPv6 to get on IRC. The two NL servers are managed by a BOFH, so it's a dead end from the start.
So, you have homelien left, and if you can't get on....

In the other way to look at things, I'm all for IPv6 servers, as long as 1) they don't use comstud IRCd (rofl) and 2) they can give the IP address in the /whois and /whowas results, as it's not easy/evident to get a DNS result from a resolved hostname, very useful for a well-deserved IP-range ban

Some lamers are thinking that since they're using IPv6, and they can't be easily IP resolved, it was like if an oper was changing their spoof.

As for -wassup-'s comment, it's not a decision to be made if we keep IPv4 or upgrade to IPv6 for Internet usage and majority wins.

zinc · Postby **zinc** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 5:57 am

there should be more ipv6 servers
sooner or later ipv6 will be the standerd that we will have to switch over to anyways
and if you are worried about abusers, most tunnel brokers have already filterd out irc, in other words abuse should have cut back alot

my suggestion
2 more .us servers
1 more eu seperate from .nl

prefect · Postby **prefect** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 9:23 am

tabarnac wrote:In the other way to look at things, I'm all for IPv6 servers, as long as 1) they don't use comstud IRCd (rofl) and 2) they can give the IP address in the /whois and /whowas results, as it's not easy/evident to get a DNS result from a resolved hostname, very useful for a well-deserved IP-range ban :)

what

[ford]:prefect: ~$ host -t AAAA ford.prefect.no
ford.prefect.no has AAAA address 2001:840:4003::1

C:\>nslookup -type=AAAA ford.prefect.no
ford.prefect.no AAAA IPv6 address = 2001:840:4003::1

there's no need for whois_actually

HM2K · Postby **HM2K** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 12:59 pm

ipv6 is just asking for trouble really... its just a poor mans ipv4...

or even better, lets just give out spoofs to whoever wants one... because thats what you might as well be doing...

I'm sure there's already a thread on this topic somewhere... i've been through all this once previously.

Postby **munky** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 3:13 pm

a poor mans ipv4? how do you figure?

ipv6 adds much need ip space (with companies like ford using up class A networks in ipv4 space), and adds some minor security features over ipv4. considering that ipv6 was designed to replace ipv4 (and is slowly trickling its way down from the backbones), i see no reason why efnet should not do the same and support ipv6.

Postby **Hardy** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 4:20 pm

HM2K wrote:ipv6 is just asking for trouble really... its just a poor mans ipv4...

or even better, lets just give out spoofs to whoever wants one... because thats what you might as well be doing...

I'm sure there's already a thread on this topic somewhere... i've been through all this once previously.

I think we need a couple of north american ipv6 servers aswell, canadian or US servers.

For me IPv6 is still a "toy" but i think irc is a good place to "be on the edge of technology" where we learn more about a new standard.

I miss the Qeast ipv6 server, it was rock stable and have for me been the best ipv6 server efnet still have seen. Lets hope we will see another canadian ipv6 server in the short future

seiki · Postby **seiki** » Mon Oct 27, 2003 6:32 pm

I would provide ipv6 service if there wasn't so many packeteers associated with it. All the frame-throwers lately seem to be 'hiding out' on ipv6 hosts.

-douglas

biggy · Postby **biggy** » Tue Oct 28, 2003 4:34 am

while i do look forward to full ipv6 deployment, right now as it is almost entirely a 'shell' type market, there is little added need for ipv6 servers. until end users physically have an ipv6 addy to them, and not through a reseller like the he.net tunnels were type thing, i see little need. as seiki said, right now they tend to be another vhost and let ppl hide out.

HM2K · Postby **HM2K** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 10:37 am

Maybe the best way would be to make a duplicate network of ipv6 servers, like EFnet6 or something, see how that runs on its own, then once its stable enough, etc link it to efnet, or such...

Because as it stands, these little ipv6 servers are not stable, though recently they have begun to prove otherwise.

I don't think the current method of transistion between ipv4 and ipv6 is just, I think a different method should be thought up...

But this is my opinion, I just don't like the way ipv6 is used, and the way it is used, also who it is used by.

You have to ask yourself though, how many websites actually have started to use ipv6? so why should we use ipv6 for efnet?

I also agree with tabarnac's proposal of showing the real ip in the whois, because as it stands its not easy to find the real ip of that user, which will always result in trouble for that ircd.

Though a .uk ipv6 server would be nice

yet any .uk server would be nice :p

munky maybe ford need their A class for all their computers, I can't imagine it qutie working via ipv6 as of yet

I'd be suprised if they even knew about ipv6...

I agree with seiki on the packeters situation, as I stated above, if someone can't find a users ipv4 to attack, they are just gonna attack the ircd...

biggy also has a point, the only people that use ipv6 really are shell providers, and developers, oh and geeks :p until its offical and run on a national scale, its fairly usless...

Well, thats yet another ipv6 summery... enjoy...

wundr · Postby **wundr** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 2:29 pm

HM2K wrote:Because as it stands, these little ipv6 servers are not stable, though recently they have begun to prove otherwise.

i found irc6.qeast.net to be very stable for me, and i don't think stability is a new thing for them.

I don't think the current method of transistion between ipv4 and ipv6 is just, I think a different method should be thought up...

i don't think there's an easy way to transition between them... they are 2 different systems that don't really interlink, so i think it's hard to make a clean transition.

But this is my opinion, I just don't like the way ipv6 is used, and the way it is used, also who it is used by.

if you mean packet kiddies and leet h4x0rs, then I agree.

You have to ask yourself though, how many websites actually have started to use ipv6? so why should we use ipv6 for efnet?

right, i think most EFNet people who install IPv6 capability on their computers do it for IRC rather than viewing IPv6 web sites, but I don't think that's a reason not to support IPv6 connections to EFNet. Use of new technology starts small and builds from there... otherwise, everyone is waiting for someone else to start first, and nothing gets done.

I also agree with tabarnac's proposal of showing the real ip in the whois, because as it stands its not easy to find the real ip of that user, which will always result in trouble for that ircd.

most of them do already, and as prefect already said, it is quite easy to get the IP of an IPv6 hostname by yourself. If you mean it should show a user's IPv4 IP... I don't think that's really possible... I don't think there's really much correlation between the 2.

munky maybe ford need their A class for all their computers,

I don't think they really need 16,777,214 IPs all to themselves. Same with MIT... a single univeristy with one campus doesn't need THAT many IPs. Those IPs could be re-delegated and used by people who can use them.

I agree with seiki on the packeters situation, as I stated above, if someone can't find a users ipv4 to attack, they are just gonna attack the ircd...

which is why maybe an IPv6-only server might be good... one where it is more difficult to find out what IPv4 network to attack. This might be harder to get voted in by admins (a server dedicated to something that a very small percentage of users use), but for IPv6 it might be a good thing.

Postby **Hardy** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 2:46 pm

I just saw a newspost that hudge cisco, at&t , 3com and bellsouth has launched the so far biggest ipv6 network in the world.

This only shows that ipv6 is the "next generation", so why shouldnt EFnet be flexible and support a service for that protocole. I dont like kiddies which hides behind ipv6 more then anyone else, but i dont want that to stand in the way of evolution. Opers can still kline/remove the abuser if needed.. and it is possible to complain to the isp offering ipv6 the same way it is with ipv4...

And why most websites doesnt support ipv6 is because they cant earn money from it yet, if they could they would. EFnet is a non profit network so thats not a consern for us.

Postby **munky** » Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:20 pm

perhaps some clarification on ipv6 is in order

ipv6 can easily be tunneled to ipv4 (it was built into the protocol to ease the transition)

most companies do know about ipv6 (yes, even ford), but at the moment, it's difficult to get ipv6 connectivity unless you're peering with backbones that support it.

there are a number of ipv6 websites available, if you know where to find them
http://www.ipv6.org/v6-www.html
http://www.ipv6.microsoft.com AAAA IPv6 address = 2002:836b:9820::836b:9886
http://www.ipv6.he.net AAAA IPv6 address = 3ffe:81d0:ffff::3
ipv6.he.net nameserver = ns2.ipv6.he.net
ipv6.he.net nameserver = ns1.ipv6.he.net
ns2.ipv6.he.net internet address = 64.71.189.2
ns2.ipv6.he.net AAAA IPv6 address = 3ffe:81d0:ffff:0:2d0:b7ff:fe21:aa51
ns1.ipv6.he.net internet address = 64.71.188.2
ns1.ipv6.he.net AAAA IPv6 address = 3ffe:81d0:ffff:0:250:4ff:fe3c:aa95

http://www.cisco.com/ipv6
http://www.microsoft.com/ipv6

you can use http://eng.hexago.com/6bone/registry/index.shtml to query for companies that have ipv6 space (ie - try searching for microsoft or cisco)

Do we need more ipv6 servers?

Do we need more ipv6 servers?

Re: Do we need more ipv6 servers?

Re: Do we need more ipv6 servers?

Who is online