Level Up to IPv6 with Ubuntu 10.10 on Comcast (Linux.com) [LWN.net]

Level Up to IPv6 with Ubuntu 10.10 on Comcast (Linux.com)

Posted Oct 22, 2010 0:43 UTC (Fri) by lutchann (subscriber, #8872)
In reply to: Level Up to IPv6 with Ubuntu 10.10 on Comcast (Linux.com) by dlang
Parent article: Level Up to IPv6 with Ubuntu 10.10 on Comcast (Linux.com)

There's this:

http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca/

It looks a little rough around the edges though.

to post comments

Level Up to IPv6 with Ubuntu 10.10 on Comcast (Linux.com)

Posted Oct 22, 2010 0:59 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (2 responses)

I'm also concerned that what they are working with is so old

bind 9.6-p1 when the current is 9.7.2-p2, fedora 10-12 (14 will be current in a couple of days, at which point 12 hits EOL)

all of this stuff is at least a year old at this point. I would have hoped that this sort of functionality would be getting upstream at this point.

the IETF draft document is set to expire in Jan 2011, so if it's going to become a standard instead of just fading away it's rapidly running out of time.

Level Up to IPv6 with Ubuntu 10.10 on Comcast (Linux.com)

Posted Oct 22, 2010 1:23 UTC (Fri) by lutchann (subscriber, #8872) [Link] (1 responses)

It's not meant to be production-quality software. Real deployments use proprietary implementations like the A10 Networks stuff. I haven't really seen anybody want to run NAT64 outside the carrier world.

The NAT64 draft cleared last call in August and is in the RFC Editor queue waiting on some related drafts to be done before it's published as an RFC.

Level Up to IPv6 with Ubuntu 10.10 on Comcast (Linux.com)

Posted Oct 22, 2010 5:07 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

with something like like this I would expect that a lot of people would want to use it in small settings, simply for the bragging rights :-)

if something like this were to be added upstream (into linux, BSD, and the two nameserveer packages) you would see this capibility in everything in a relativly short time. It would be trivial to add it to most small routers for example.

If they really are taking the attitude that only large ISPs would care about this and they will buy specialized equipment from Cisco to do this, then they are really missing the boat.