Print

Research for work

96 (31%)

Personal use

170 (54.8%)

IRC

5 (1.6%)

To see the dancing turtle!

21 (6.8%)

Other...(reply below)

18 (5.8%)

Total Members Voted: 303

[grinsepilz]

just for educational purpose


but I love the dancing turtle

[jimb]

I'm using it to learn more about the operational aspects of IPv6.  I can't really see using it for "personal use" since I'm using a tunnel to get it (no native IPv6 on my ISP so far  ), and it'd be a bit slow, plus I wouldn't want to abuse HE's graciously provided bandwidth for that sort of thing.   

Using IPv6 takes me back to the late 80s, early 90s, where we didn't have deal with NAT, and everything had a globally routed address.  It makes me eager for a time when IPv4, NAT, and all its complications will be a thing of the past.  It'll be "Back to the Future" in a way. 

[aantigua]

 for educational purpose (working for an university) and personal use..

[Iohniron]

I'm using it for personal education mostly.

I love the idea of IPv6 and available MTU associated with it.

I'm very thankful for this site, I just wish I would have stumbled onto it a year ago.

[bombcar]

I'm using it now to allow my network and my friend's networks to communicate directly, even though they're on "dynamic" ranges.

Well, I would, if AT&T wasn't scared of a bit of rain.

[sagard123]

...Using IPv6 takes me back to the late 80s, early 90s, where we didn't have deal with NAT, and everything had a globally routed address....

Do you really trust an Internet with all the Microsoft hosts using live addressing? 

But yeah the IPV6 Internet looks a lot like 1993.

[jimb]

...Using IPv6 takes me back to the late 80s, early 90s, where we didn't have deal with NAT, and everything had a globally routed address....

Do you really trust an Internet with all the Microsoft hosts using live addressing?  

But yeah the IPV6 Internet looks a lot like 1993.

You can't really trust any OS, or any piece of software a user might install, or any user to keep their OS secure.  This is why you still need network firewalls even with IPv6 to put your clients machines behind.  The only real change IPv6 makes is that there's no need for NAT.  But you still need a good FW with a sane security policy installed.  I'm using ip6tables for this purpose on my v6 router.

At least today MS OSes have a firewall installed that isn't wide open!  In contrast, most linux distros ship with iptables, but with no default policy, and thus are wide open.  Of course MS OSes tend to have more buggy/exploitable things running and open by default too.  

I'm basically a Unix/Linux guy, but I still try to be agnostic and fair about OSes.  

[sagard123]

I'm basically a Unix/Linux guy, but I still try to be agnostic and fair about OSes.  

I'm with you on all OS problems, but when MS has 90% of the market they get 90% of the flak. 

[PatrickDickey]

I'm basically a Unix/Linux guy, but I still try to be agnostic and fair about OSes.  

Likewise..  Although I prefer Linux and Microsoft over Apple    But in the end, the OS is only as secure as the user who's at the computer allows it to be.  If they click on something that can infect their computers, then it doesn't matter why it was able to actually infect the computer.  It's still because the user clicked it.

(Yep, I know that Microsoft can be infected just by going to the site, but really if it's because of flash or something else, it can potentially infect all os'es IMHO).

Have a great day:)
Patrick.

Oh, and where's the dancing turtle? LOL

[snarked]

Turtle:  http://www.kame.net/  - He only dances if accessed via IPv6.

[danixsystems]

Personal use, and basically to experiment with IPv6, which has been until now something of an alien concept for me. Also, I miss the old days when everyone had IPv4 addys and NAT wasn't needed. 

Of course, now I've been tainted by NAT and the idea of everyone having globally-routeable addresses seems kinda weird to me... even if 10 years ago, that was what I was used to! 

[grobe0ba]

Since my ISP doesn't offer native v6, this seemed the best way to go. I already knew about HE, in a vague manner, as they are the v4 transit provider for a VPS I have, but wasn't aware of tunnelbroker till I got bored one day, and decided to learn about IPv6, even though up to that point I was anti-IPv6. Now that I've got it, I can't give it up, it's great being able to access all of the computers on my local network (all 10 of 'em), instead of dealing with a bloody NAT.

On a side note, anyone here managed to get a tunnel going on Android 2.2? I've got a p3droid kernel, with sit support, but I can't seem to get it to work...

Location: Naval Submarine Base, Groton, CT
Router: Hostname: tethyes - OS: Linux 2.6.32-5-xen-686/i686 - Distro: Debian squeeze/sid - CPU: 4 x Pentium III (Cascades) (701.600 MHz) - Processes: 161 - Uptime: 2d 18h 44m - Users: 1 - Load Average: 0.00 - Memory Usage: 147.99MB/1009.68MB (14.66%) - Disk Usage: 904.24GB/1572.52GB (57.50%) - eth0 Traffic (eth0): 1879.87MB In/1683.43MB Out

[lukec]

What's wrong with NAT...now one has "tunnels" to think about - don't recall using them in early '90s either...

As Crush would say to Squirt "Grab shell. Go native dude!" - Possibly 10 years from now we won't require either!

However, (subtly serious question) surely in using /64s on tunnels, are we not halving (poss) the 340 trillion trillion trillion 'ish V6 addresses available for use or at least losing 65532 addresses for each tunnel used?
Would not  /126 be viable?
Currently use native /126 (ptp) and /128 (lo) and wondering why most tunnel brokers go for /64 ? (not yet setup any internal tunnels)

I'd hate to see a V6 countdown "counter" in my lifetime!!

In reality,  using for "research" for deployment in large enterprise.

"atelier momonga"(voluntary association) was established in 1995. The aims of the association are to respect for an individual opinion, to offer the place to create an original work, to promote a local community culture.

[kcochran]

However, (subtly serious question) surely in using /64s on tunnels, are we not halving (poss) the 340 trillion trillion trillion 'ish V6 addresses available for use or at least losing 65532 addresses for each tunnel used?
Would not  /126 be viable?
Currently use native /126 (ptp) and /128 (lo) and wondering why most tunnel brokers go for /64 ? (not yet setup any internal tunnels)

Longer than /64 prefixes are actually not as widely supported.  Some hardware won't do /126s, for example.  Which makes sense a bit if you figure their internals are liable to be tuned best for dealing with 64bit values.  It's also administratively easier to deal with a bunch of /64s than a zillion little /126s.  And even if /126s were used, I'd almost expect /124s would be more widely used than /126s, since they at least fall on a nibble boundary, which once again, makes administration easier (rDNS breaks on an easy spot, can do substring matches on prefixes from scripts, etc.)

[maestroevolution]

However, (subtly serious question) surely in using /64s on tunnels, are we not halving (poss) the 340 trillion trillion trillion 'ish V6 addresses available for use or at least losing 65532 addresses for each tunnel used?

Just to nitpick the numbers...

Using a /64 on a P2P interface doesn't waste 65532 addresses; you lose 2**64 - 4 (ish.), or 18,446,744,073,709,551,612 addresses.

If I had a penny for every unused IP on every /64 tunnel... (or heck, even one tunnel), I'd leave this IPv6 to you and just retire

Joel