Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
IPV4 to IPV6
6 views
Skip to first unread message
mike luther
May 17, 2012, 9:27:57 PM5/17/12
to
Curious..
Where are we going with SeaMonkey et. al., plus other OS/2 IP issues and the
change from IPV4 to IPV6?
--
--> Sleep well; OS2's still awake! ;)
Mike Luther
Where are we going with SeaMonkey et. al., plus other OS/2 IP issues and the
change from IPV4 to IPV6?
--
--> Sleep well; OS2's still awake! ;)
Mike Luther
Steve Wendt
May 17, 2012, 9:48:50 PM5/17/12
to
On 5/17/2012 6:27 PM, mike luther wrote:
> Where are we going with SeaMonkey et. al., plus other OS/2 IP issues and
> the change from IPV4 to IPV6?
"Mozilla implemented IPv6 support in early 2000" but OS/2 will never
> Where are we going with SeaMonkey et. al., plus other OS/2 IP issues and
> the change from IPV4 to IPV6?
support it unless a new TCP/IP stack is created.
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Network.dns.disableIPv6
It's not like IPv4 is going away...
Lewis Rosenthal
May 17, 2012, 11:57:51 PM5/17/12
to
Hi, Mike...
On 05/17/12 09:27 pm, mike luther thus wrote :
have the ability to NAT connections from an IPv4 LAN to an IPv6 internet
host, our own lack of an IPv6-aware stack is not a major issue.
Now, there are complications for DNS lookups for hosts which have *no*
IPv4 addresses (e.g., how does an IPv4 client request an address to then
forward to a NAT router when it can't understand the results of the
lookup, as there is no such thing as an AAAA record in IPv4?), but we
have a considerable amount of time before this becomes a regular
occurrence, and who knows? By then, we may actually have an IPv6-aware
stack.
Another situation where the lack of an IPv6-aware stack becomes
problematic is when an OS/2 client is directly connected to the
internet, without the aid of a NAT router in front of it, but such
situations are quite rare these days.
Some work was done on a new stack for OS/2 several years ago. We may
find some renewed interest and drive behind the project when the need
becomes more urgent.
Cheers/2
--
Lewis
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis G Rosenthal, CNA, CLP, CLE, CWTS
Rosenthal & Rosenthal, LLC www.2rosenthals.com
Need a managed Wi-Fi hotspot? www.hautspot.com
visit my IT blog www.2rosenthals.net/wordpress
-------------------------------------------------------------
On 05/17/12 09:27 pm, mike luther thus wrote :
> Curious..
>
> Where are we going with SeaMonkey et. al., plus other OS/2 IP issues and
> the change from IPV4 to IPV6?
>
As long as we have edge routers running other OSes (like Linux) which
>
> Where are we going with SeaMonkey et. al., plus other OS/2 IP issues and
> the change from IPV4 to IPV6?
>
have the ability to NAT connections from an IPv4 LAN to an IPv6 internet
host, our own lack of an IPv6-aware stack is not a major issue.
Now, there are complications for DNS lookups for hosts which have *no*
IPv4 addresses (e.g., how does an IPv4 client request an address to then
forward to a NAT router when it can't understand the results of the
lookup, as there is no such thing as an AAAA record in IPv4?), but we
have a considerable amount of time before this becomes a regular
occurrence, and who knows? By then, we may actually have an IPv6-aware
stack.
Another situation where the lack of an IPv6-aware stack becomes
problematic is when an OS/2 client is directly connected to the
internet, without the aid of a NAT router in front of it, but such
situations are quite rare these days.
Some work was done on a new stack for OS/2 several years ago. We may
find some renewed interest and drive behind the project when the need
becomes more urgent.
Cheers/2
--
Lewis
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis G Rosenthal, CNA, CLP, CLE, CWTS
Rosenthal & Rosenthal, LLC www.2rosenthals.com
Need a managed Wi-Fi hotspot? www.hautspot.com
visit my IT blog www.2rosenthals.net/wordpress
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Yeo
May 18, 2012, 12:51:21 AM5/18/12
to dev-po...@lists.mozilla.org
On 05/17/12 08:57 pm, Lewis Rosenthal wrote:
> Another situation where the lack of an IPv6-aware stack becomes
> problematic is when an OS/2 client is directly connected to the
> internet, without the aid of a NAT router in front of it, but such
> situations are quite rare these days.
My computer is the NAT router around here :) Seems there's also a good
> Another situation where the lack of an IPv6-aware stack becomes
> problematic is when an OS/2 client is directly connected to the
> internet, without the aid of a NAT router in front of it, but such
> situations are quite rare these days.
chance that ISP's might have some sort of support for IPV4 clients.
Dave
Lewis Rosenthal
May 18, 2012, 11:38:37 AM5/18/12
to
On 05/18/12 12:51 am, Dave Yeo thus wrote :
I suspect they will for some time. Also, it's really a DNS thing. As
long as your uplevel DNS server responds to an IPv4 query with IPv4
info, you shouldn't have a problem. In 2005, I filed the following bug
while in Dresden at the OS/2 Developers Conference and experiencing
difficulties with FF:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=300302
To clarify the above statement, an IPv6 DNS server which is listening on
an IPv4 IP (dual stack) should properly respond to an IPv4 request (an
IPv4 client will never request resolution of an AAAA record, as no such
animal exists in the IPv4 universe; it would be kind of like a resident
in Flatland asking how high a building was). The important thing is that
the DNS server is listening and responding on/to an IPv4 address, and
will continue to provide IPv4 data.
To get an idea of IPv6 adoption (and conversely, IPv4 orphaning), one
might want to check out http://mnlab-ipv6.seas.upenn.edu:8080/monitor/
or one of the linked monitors from there.
The mechanism used to translate between IPv4 & IPv6 is called NAT-PT
(Network Address Translation-Protocol Translation) and is defined in RFC
2677(?) (yes; just re-checked). NAT-PT is the/an alternative to running
both stacks simultaneously, though surely not ideal (and, unless you
have *something* local which understands both protocols, this isn't
going to be feasible).
So, when the time comes that you bump into a regular situation, Dave,
where you can't access one or more important sites because it/they
has/have *no* IPv4 address (or perhaps it does/they do but for whatever
reason, no A record(s) exist), then you can look into putting something
else between you and the internet to do the translation.
An excellent reference for all things IPv6 is http://ipv6.com.
long as your uplevel DNS server responds to an IPv4 query with IPv4
info, you shouldn't have a problem. In 2005, I filed the following bug
while in Dresden at the OS/2 Developers Conference and experiencing
difficulties with FF:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=300302
To clarify the above statement, an IPv6 DNS server which is listening on
an IPv4 IP (dual stack) should properly respond to an IPv4 request (an
IPv4 client will never request resolution of an AAAA record, as no such
animal exists in the IPv4 universe; it would be kind of like a resident
in Flatland asking how high a building was). The important thing is that
the DNS server is listening and responding on/to an IPv4 address, and
will continue to provide IPv4 data.
To get an idea of IPv6 adoption (and conversely, IPv4 orphaning), one
might want to check out http://mnlab-ipv6.seas.upenn.edu:8080/monitor/
or one of the linked monitors from there.
The mechanism used to translate between IPv4 & IPv6 is called NAT-PT
(Network Address Translation-Protocol Translation) and is defined in RFC
2677(?) (yes; just re-checked). NAT-PT is the/an alternative to running
both stacks simultaneously, though surely not ideal (and, unless you
have *something* local which understands both protocols, this isn't
going to be feasible).
So, when the time comes that you bump into a regular situation, Dave,
where you can't access one or more important sites because it/they
has/have *no* IPv4 address (or perhaps it does/they do but for whatever
reason, no A record(s) exist), then you can look into putting something
else between you and the internet to do the translation.
An excellent reference for all things IPv6 is http://ipv6.com.
Steve Wendt
May 18, 2012, 1:16:27 PM5/18/12
to
On 5/18/2012 8:38 AM, Lewis Rosenthal wrote:
> So, when the time comes that you bump into a regular situation, Dave,
> where you can't access one or more important sites
So sayeth Dave Rosenthal to Dave Luther. :-)
> So, when the time comes that you bump into a regular situation, Dave,
> where you can't access one or more important sites
Lewis Rosenthal
May 18, 2012, 3:37:05 PM5/18/12
to
On 05/18/12 01:16 pm, Steve Wendt thus wrote :
Sorry, Steve... I'm missing the reference...
I thought we addressed Mike's original question earlier in the thread. I
was just following up on what Dave mentioned concerning using his OS/2
box (well, I *assumed* it was running OS/2) as his NAT router.
Or...are you thinking that IPv6 connectivity is something more urgent
than I have described?
I thought we addressed Mike's original question earlier in the thread. I
was just following up on what Dave mentioned concerning using his OS/2
box (well, I *assumed* it was running OS/2) as his NAT router.
Or...are you thinking that IPv6 connectivity is something more urgent
than I have described?
Steve Wendt
May 18, 2012, 3:56:12 PM5/18/12
to
On 5/18/2012 12:37 PM, Lewis Rosenthal wrote:
>>> So, when the time comes that you bump into a regular situation, Dave,
>>> where you can't access one or more important sites
>>
>> So sayeth Dave Rosenthal to Dave Luther. :-)
>
> Sorry, Steve... I'm missing the reference...
I thought you were still addressing Mike's original question, and was
>>> So, when the time comes that you bump into a regular situation, Dave,
>>> where you can't access one or more important sites
>>
>> So sayeth Dave Rosenthal to Dave Luther. :-)
>
> Sorry, Steve... I'm missing the reference...
referencing the earlier "everyone here is Dave" thread.
> Or...are you thinking that IPv6 connectivity is something more urgent
> than I have described?
Dave Yeo
May 18, 2012, 10:37:21 PM5/18/12
to dev-po...@lists.mozilla.org
On 05/18/12 12:37 pm, Lewis Rosenthal wrote:
> On 05/18/12 01:16 pm, Steve Wendt thus wrote :
>> On 5/18/2012 8:38 AM, Lewis Rosenthal wrote:
>>
>>> So, when the time comes that you bump into a regular situation, Dave,
>>> where you can't access one or more important sites
>>
>> So sayeth Dave Rosenthal to Dave Luther. :-)
>
> Sorry, Steve... I'm missing the reference...
>
> I thought we addressed Mike's original question earlier in the thread. I
> was just following up on what Dave mentioned concerning using his OS/2
> box (well, I *assumed* it was running OS/2) as his NAT router.
>
> Or...are you thinking that IPv6 connectivity is something more urgent
> than I have described?
>
Possibly Steve is confused as my message didn't show up on the mailing
> On 05/18/12 01:16 pm, Steve Wendt thus wrote :
>> On 5/18/2012 8:38 AM, Lewis Rosenthal wrote:
>>
>>> So, when the time comes that you bump into a regular situation, Dave,
>>> where you can't access one or more important sites
>>
>> So sayeth Dave Rosenthal to Dave Luther. :-)
>
> Sorry, Steve... I'm missing the reference...
>
> I thought we addressed Mike's original question earlier in the thread. I
> was just following up on what Dave mentioned concerning using his OS/2
> box (well, I *assumed* it was running OS/2) as his NAT router.
>
> Or...are you thinking that IPv6 connectivity is something more urgent
> than I have described?
>
list. Seems at least 10% of messages on the newsgroup don't show on the
mailing list. I monitor both
Dave
Steve Wendt
May 18, 2012, 10:43:48 PM5/18/12
to
On 5/18/2012 7:37 PM, Dave Yeo wrote:
> Possibly Steve is confused as my message didn't show up on the mailing
> list. Seems at least 10% of messages on the newsgroup don't show on the
> mailing list.
I only read the newsgroup.
> Possibly Steve is confused as my message didn't show up on the mailing
> list. Seems at least 10% of messages on the newsgroup don't show on the
> mailing list.
Lewis Rosenthal
May 19, 2012, 10:28:06 AM5/19/12
to
On 05/18/12 10:43 pm, Steve Wendt thus wrote :
No, this one was on me; senior moment. I should have caught your
reference, but my mind was elsewhere!!! :-)
There are indeed differing opinions as to the immediacy of IPv6
adoption, and wasn't sure whether you were expressing the other side of
the argument than I. As I'm not all that settled one way or the other
(going mainly from my own experience and what I've had to learn for
exams and such), and predicting the future is not my specialty, I'm
certainly open to hearing other sides of the discussion.
Cheers/2
reference, but my mind was elsewhere!!! :-)
There are indeed differing opinions as to the immediacy of IPv6
adoption, and wasn't sure whether you were expressing the other side of
the argument than I. As I'm not all that settled one way or the other
(going mainly from my own experience and what I've had to learn for
exams and such), and predicting the future is not my specialty, I'm
certainly open to hearing other sides of the discussion.
Cheers/2
0 new messages