Butch,
No, I'm not on the IPv6 mailing list. I'll check it out. Thanks!
Greg
On Jan 16, 2011, at 12:35 AM, Butch Evans wrote:
On 01/13/2011 05:54 PM, Greg Ihnen wrote:
No, I'm not offended at all. I appreciate your comments and the privilege of
being in the forum.
When I read
Yes, there is a full config on the wiki and some comments I wrote as I
did the implementation.
Butch's configuration is there.
HE also has some of the configuration for MT on their website.
On 1/16/2011 12:05 AM, Butch Evans wrote:
On 01/13/2011 05:54 PM, Greg Ihnen wrote:
No, I'm not offended
At 1/15/2011 11:56 PM, ButchE wrote:
On 01/13/2011 09:19 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
Personal opinion: IPv6 is worth less than the paper its RFC is
printed on. Ignore it and it will go away. Really.
Perhaps personal opinion, but bad advice.
Obviously we have different opinions.
If one of
On 01/16/2011 01:07 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
At 1/15/2011 11:56 PM, ButchE wrote:
On 01/13/2011 09:19 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
Personal opinion: IPv6 is worth less than the paper its RFC is
printed on. Ignore it and it will go away. Really.
Perhaps personal opinion, but bad advice.
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1999-09-10/
I think I missed Friday.
While I agree v6 is a crap pile, it also is going to be implemented
and far sooner then some people think. Not that my source is all
authoritative
on the subject, it was a conversation with a cellular tech support.
His claim is
I must have missed something along the way. I keep seeing postings here
that IPv6 is worthless, yet when I read the posts on NANOG, ARIN and
IETF mail lists, it is a viable and in production protocol. So, would
some one please post the *facts *that make IPv6 so bad.
On 1/16/2011 2:51 PM,
It is a protocol wonk holy war :-)
IPv6 is worse
OSI is better
Using the definition from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better
Does not matter to me because I have customers that need end-to-end
connectivity to China and mobile data in the US (that is going native
v6 with v4 NAT) so I'm
On 01/16/2011 02:24 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
If there really does turn out to be *meaningful* content that can
*only* be reached via v6, then gateways will exist. One form or other
of a 4-to-6-NAT. Name-based services will help; using an IP address
in the application layer is a capital-M
I'm not going to tie up this list with a long protocol war, since
this isn't the forum, but I'll answer a few questions. You can see
some more stuff on my web site and especially the Pouzin Society
site, but there will be more coming out later.
At 1/16/2011 03:36 PM, JeromieR wrote:
I must
On 01/13/2011 09:19 AM, Fred Goldstein wrote:
Personal opinion: IPv6 is worth less than the paper its RFC is
printed on. Ignore it and it will go away. Really.
Perhaps personal opinion, but bad advice.
If one of your subscribers really needs to reach something only
accessible via IPv6, they
On 01/13/2011 05:54 PM, Greg Ihnen wrote:
No, I'm not offended at all. I appreciate your comments and the privilege of
being in the forum.
When I read what you wrote about how the HE tunnel is IPv4 as far as the MT
router is concerned (that had escaped me).
But I still would be interested
On 01/13/2011 06:23 PM, Kristian Hoffmann wrote:
I ran across this subtle caveat today in the MT wiki...
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Interface/Wireless
Note: Currently IPv6 doesn't work over Pseudobridge
This could (should?) be reworded as: Note: Currently most things
(including
- Original Message -
From: Scott Reed
To: WISPA General List
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Anyone running MT RB-750, UBNT gear doing IPv6?
While it is true that the HE tunnel is IPv4 on the HE-facing side, the MT is
doing true IPv6 on the internal
I pushed UBNT on this directly - as they have not given a direct date.
http://ubnt.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26668
ARIN had been giving IPV6 out for FREE - so it is not just a dream
With vendors (like Time Warner) trying to charge $1 per IP (that is where they
start the negotiating) - that
I've got a small network with a MT RB-750 and UBNT (PS2's, NSL2's, NSLM5's,
NSM5's and a BulletM2) and I'm wondering how we're going to fair if/when our
upstream throws the switch on IPv6. I'd like to hear someone else is already
doing it.
Our upstream apparently is Hughesnet being resold in
At 1/13/2011 10:00 AM, GregI wrote:
I've got a small network with a MT RB-750 and UBNT (PS2's, NSL2's,
NSLM5's, NSM5's and a BulletM2) and I'm wondering how we're going to
fair if/when our upstream throws the switch on IPv6. I'd like to
hear someone else is already doing it.
Our upstream
Direct answer to the queston is, you will not know when it is turned on.
IPv6 is a new protocol that uses different header information in the
packets. If you don't turn on support on your devices, they will ignore
the packets.
I disagree with Fred's opinions. Not everything is going to run v4
I've got a small network with a MT RB-750 and UBNT (PS2's, NSL2's,
NSLM5's, NSM5's and a BulletM2) and I'm wondering how we're going to
fair if/when our upstream throws the switch on IPv6. I'd like to
hear someone else is already doing it.
Our upstream apparently is Hughesnet being resold in
I agree. v4 space IS running out. Cellular co's are looking to move to
a v6 space and drop the nat that most of them run. I already
run dual stack on my MT's. I am waiting for Ubnt to add v6 so I can
hand directly to end users as well. There are like 7 /8's left and
IIRC
China gobbled 2 in 2010
I'm currently using a RB-750 with a IPv6 tunnel/delegation from he.net
at home. Works fine.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Greg Ihnen os10ru...@gmail.com wrote:
I've got a small network with a MT RB-750 and UBNT (PS2's, NSL2's, NSLM5's,
NSM5's and a BulletM2) and I'm wondering how we're
Oh good point, me too.
Keep in mind this is a 6 over 4 tunnel. The 750 talks ipv4 to he.net
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Jon Auer j...@tapodi.net wrote:
I'm currently using a RB-750 with a
Does that tunnel add overhead (cut down throughput)? I'm guessing it would have
to.
Greg
On Jan 13, 2011, at 12:43 PM, Jon Auer wrote:
I'm currently using a RB-750 with a IPv6 tunnel/delegation from he.net
at home. Works fine.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Greg Ihnen
It would have to, but you don't do speed tests through it - it's a free
tunnel for technical testing and such.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Greg Ihnen os10ru...@gmail.com wrote:
Does that tunnel
At 1/13/2011 11:59 AM, you wrote:
I've got a small network with a MT RB-750 and UBNT (PS2's, NSL2's,
NSLM5's, NSM5's and a BulletM2) and I'm wondering how we're going to
fair if/when our upstream throws the switch on IPv6. I'd like to
hear someone else is already doing it.
Our upstream
Well, yes, due to the tunnel encapsulation you have less MTU headroom
so you move less data in each packet so you need more packets to
transfer the same amount of data (assuming the data is larger than the
packet size).
It has not been noticeable. I just hit up the Google and Facebook IPv6
sites
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Don't feed the trolls.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJNL038AAoJEMvvG/TyLEAt4vsQALY+GnQXl8lfEUh/OBVqOdpi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/13/2011 07:00 AM, Greg Ihnen wrote:
I've got a small network with a MT RB-750 and UBNT (PS2's, NSL2's, NSLM5's,
NSM5's and a BulletM2) and I'm wondering how we're going to fair if/when our
upstream throws the switch on IPv6. I'd like to
At 1/13/2011 02:09 PM, Charles Wyble wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Don't feed the trolls.
Who are you calling a troll, oh young whippersnapper?
--
Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com
ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
+1 617 795
Sure Ubnt in bridge mode works fine. We still need native v6 support.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Charles N Wyble
char...@knownelement.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/13/2011 07:00 AM, Greg Ihnen wrote:
I've got a small network with a MT RB-750 and UBNT
Have you actually tested that? I ask because I expect it to work, too, but
haven't actually done it myself.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Jeromie Reeves jree...@18-30chat.netwrote:
Sure Ubnt in
Yes I have. All my AP's are AP-WDS and all clients are WDS with a
router behind it. v6 works fine.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Josh Luthman
j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote:
Have you actually tested that? I ask because I expect it to work, too, but
haven't actually done it myself.
Awesome, appreciate the confirmation.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Jeromie Reeves jree...@18-30chat.netwrote:
Yes I have. All my AP's are AP-WDS and all clients are WDS with a
router behind it.
Any Mikrotik routers in the mix?
Greg
On Jan 13, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
Yes I have. All my AP's are AP-WDS and all clients are WDS with a
router behind it. v6 works fine.
WISPA Wants You! Join
The RC for v5 just added a lot of IPv6 stuff. No more then a few weeks old.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Greg Ihnen os10ru...@gmail.com wrote:
Any Mikrotik routers in the mix?
Greg
On Jan
Yeah, I'm running RC7, but in an IPv4 network. I'd like to hear how it's doing
with IPv6.
Greg
On Jan 13, 2011, at 6:58 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
The RC for v5 just added a lot of IPv6 stuff. No more then a few weeks old.
Sounds like you're already beta testing with RC7. Can't you just tack on an
he.net tunnel?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Greg Ihnen os10ru...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, I'm running RC7, but in an
Yeah, I could but this is a production network, and we're in the Amazon, and
the network is our only comms, and it's a satellite 512k/128k connection, and
we try to do Skype, and with the lack of bandwidth and high latency and jitter
it's already iffy. I'm afraid to add the HE tunnel into the
IPv6 on top of v4 won't change the way v4 runs.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 6:38 PM, Greg Ihnen os10ru...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, I could but this is a production network, and we're in the Amazon,
and
But even 3.30 supports enough v6 for it to work.
I have a working tunnel to HE via 5.0rc5 that is working well. I
suppose it is time to upgrade that one.
On 1/13/2011 6:28 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
The RC for v5 just added a lot of IPv6 stuff. No more then a few
weeks old.
Josh Luthman
Just testing you. No, really.
Thanks
Greg
On Jan 13, 2011, at 7:09 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
IPv6 on top of v4 won't change the way v4 runs.
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
To route?
Or are you referring to bridge?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net wrote:
But even 3.30 supports enough v6 for it to work.
I have a working tunnel to HE via
Depending on how full his pipe already is, I'd be concerned with
overhead as a percentage of a full pipe.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
On 1/13/2011 5:39 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
IPv6 on top of v4 won't change the way v4 runs.
Josh Luthman
Office:
My point is that you're a step away from accomplishing what you're asking
others for at no consequence.
I apologize if I offended you.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Greg Ihnen os10ru...@gmail.com
No, I'm not offended at all. I appreciate your comments and the privilege of
being in the forum.
When I read what you wrote about how the HE tunnel is IPv4 as far as the MT
router is concerned (that had escaped me).
But I still would be interested to know if others are doing true IPv6 through
When did they add on IPv6? I see on some of my 4.x routers I see VERY
simple services - IP discovery, addresses and routes.
I think the only real way to deploy ipv6 with MT is on rc7. You're the only
brave soul I know of.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Yea, all the core routers are MT 3.30 and up.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Greg Ihnen os10ru...@gmail.com wrote:
Any Mikrotik routers in the mix?
Greg
On Jan 13, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
Yes I have. All my AP's are AP-WDS and all clients are WDS with a
router behind it.
I ran across this subtle caveat today in the MT wiki...
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Interface/Wireless
Note: Currently IPv6 doesn't work over Pseudobridge
-Kristian
On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 16:49 -0500, Josh Luthman wrote:
Awesome, appreciate the confirmation.
Josh Luthman
Office:
Route. I don't use bridges for much of anything.
On 1/13/2011 6:44 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
To route?
Or are you referring to bridge?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Scott Reed sr...@nwwnet.net
While it is true that the HE tunnel is IPv4 on the HE-facing side, the
MT is doing true IPv6 on the internal side. I have had my Windows XP
laptop, a couple of MT routers and a Linux server all connected and they
do IPv6 just fine and use the HE tunnel as well. Keep in mind, v6 is
not new,
49 matches
Mail list logo
