Do we need more ipv6 servers?

[Hardy]

Hardy,

I too want to see an ipv6 server in north-america.
However, since the thread was "do we _need_ another ipv6 server?" I just considered the basic needs... and I think we can agree that we dont _need_ it, although we may want it.

I know.. im just being a smartass

I belive we need a North american one soon to continue beeing called a network that provides ipv6 support for their users

I was messaged by a undernet users here the other day, and he messaged me to say how cool it was that we provided ipv6 for the network, and how he was hoping undernet would catch up on technology aswell. And i agree.

IRC is a free service for its users, and what better place then that can you get ipv6 known and used on a daily bases. We are helping to push the evolution on the new internet protocol

[Noam]

And when it comes to he.net hosting a ipv6 server, that was asked some time back and they didnt want to do it. Not sure why but i last i checked they dont "allow" their own ipv6 tunnel users to use it for irc either.

Hmm, this could be the perfect solution then. If they had a v6 IRC server they could allow access just to that server, and any irc-related abuse could be dealt with by their staff.
I'm not telling HE what to do, but isn't this the perfect solution? this way the rants about not being able to use IRC would be stopped, and the abuse could be dealt with however they want to, as it is their tunnel.

[Hardy]

And when it comes to he.net hosting a ipv6 server, that was asked some time back and they didnt want to do it. Not sure why but i last i checked they dont "allow" their own ipv6 tunnel users to use it for irc either.

Hmm, this could be the perfect solution then. If they had a v6 IRC server they could allow access just to that server, and any irc-related abuse could be dealt with by their staff.
I'm not telling HE what to do, but isn't this the perfect solution? this way the rants about not being able to use IRC would be stopped, and the abuse could be dealt with however they want to, as it is their tunnel.

Yupp, i agree. I`ll mention it to their admins when i see them online, but dont hold your breath, i doubt it will happend really

[Tibar]

Gatel/Aixit will be putting in an application to link an ipv6 server, in the very near future. We know that it is another European server but we have good routes to the united states and welcome anyone and everyone (to all of our services!)

-tibar

[Noam]

good to hear
the more the merrier

[Hardy]

Gatel/Aixit will be putting in an application to link an ipv6 server, in the very near future. We know that it is another European server but we have good routes to the united states and welcome anyone and everyone (to all of our services!)

-tibar

Sounds good. I think its a good idea to provide ipv6 service also on existing servers, however i dont like the idea of linking in a 2. server with it when you can run dualstack. The code has proven itself stable enough for that.

good to hear
the more the merrier

Both yes and no, by restricting the ammouth of ipv6 servers so early in the process its easier to reduce the potensial abuse from ipv6 users. If all 40(?) client servers on efnet would support ipv6 i think we would have a problem handling cloning and abuse from the clients. But a few servers spread all over the map is good tho, from native providers. Then if you are banned you ARE banned

[leeh]

Sounds good. I think its a good idea to provide ipv6 service also on existing servers, however i dont like the idea of linking in a 2. server with it when you can run dualstack. The code has proven itself stable enough for that.

I think whether or not you have a second server will have a big effect on how much DoS you get. If you run an open ipv6 server which has an open ipv4 ip on it (homelien is limited routes), youre gunna get packeted to hell and back for the users on your server, because the users cant be packeted directly, so theyll take out the server instead.

That means youre gunna get all the packets for the kiddies using your server, which isnt a nice thing..

[HM2K]

in regards to one in US, maybe HE.net can support one? as they have IPv6 set up and an EFNet server

heh, i said that a while back... he.net tunneler won't let you use their tunneler for irc or something, so I doubt they are going to run an ircd for it... I am not 100% though...

That means youre gunna get all the packets for the kiddies using your server, which isnt a nice thing..

I also said this, and I totally agree, this brings me back to my point that most people I see using ipv6 have something to hide... usually their ipv4 :p

And if people are going to do that, then why not flatten the server list, or remove the server name on whois etc... it sounds mighty dumb and mighty stupid... Its just gonna end up like dal net.

in my opinion ipv6 just asks for trouble, however you look at it, there is no good reason for it atm, until it becomes more of a standard, and NOT just used by a bunch of geeks :p

[dayzed]

i'm gonna say what's been said atleast a handful of times already;

we may not *need* a north american ipv6 server, but it would certainly ease getting and keeping an ipv6 connection. as it is, i barely stay connected to homelien, and i can't get connected to either of the .nl servers.

in addition, qeast did rock the block. it was solid and fast. (why'd they delink anyway?)

just my spin on it.

[Jon]

Conflict of interest
http://www.efnet.info/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25

their ipv6 was put on hold to deal with the abuse

[Silence]

You should have no problem connecting to efnet.ipv6.xs4all.nl since it's open I-lined (*@*). What error do you get?

[Rage]

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

there is a list. It's called whois.

server-1:/etc/bind# whois 3ffe:host-hidden::1

% RIPEdb(3.0.0b2) with ISI RPSL extensions

inet6num: 3FFE:80EE::/32
netname: XS26-USER-DELEGATIONS
descr: XS26 USERS
query whois.xs26.net for more specific records

I won't bore you with the other 3 pages, but there was no less than 5 email addresses on that whois, including an abuse@ , not to mention web addresses, and I think physical addresses.... Same system as with IPv4

[dexter]

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

there is a list. It's called whois.

server-1:/etc/bind# whois 3ffe:host-hidden::1

% RIPEdb(3.0.0b2) with ISI RPSL extensions

inet6num: 3FFE:80EE::/32
netname: XS26-USER-DELEGATIONS
descr: XS26 USERS
query whois.xs26.net for more specific records

I won't bore you with the other 3 pages, but there was no less than 5 email addresses on that whois, including an abuse@ , not to mention web addresses, and I think physical addresses.... Same system as with IPv4

He's talking about finding out who the tunnel broker assigned the tunnels to. The remote users wouldn't have the IP space delegated to them, so they wouldn't appear in the whois information for the ip block.