Mailing List Archive

On 7/31/20 2:05 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
> Nit: DHCPv6 can be (and usually is) dynamic, but it doesn't have to
> be. It's entirely possible to have a static IP address that your OS
> (or firewall/router) acquires via DHCPv6 (or v4). [I set up stuff
> like that all the time.]

Counter Nit: That's still acquiring an address via /Dynamic/ Host
Configuration Protocol (v6). It /is/ a /dynamic/ process.

Static IP address has some very specific meaning when it comes to
configuring TCP/IP stacks. Specifically that you enter the address to
be used, and it doesn't change until someone changes it in the
configuration.

Either an IP address is statically entered -or- it's dynamic.

The fact that it's returning the same, possibly predictable, address is
independent of the fact that it's a /dynamic/ process.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 7/31/20 2:01 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
> There may be half way decent ISPs in the US, but I haven't seen one
> in over 20 years since the last one I was aware of stopped dealing
> with residential customers. They were a victem of the "race to the
> bottom" when not enough residential customers were willing to pay $10
> per month over what Comcast or US-West was charging for half-assed,
> crippled internet access).

I think there is probably a good correlation between size and desire to
be good and provide service.

I've found that smaller ISPs (who actually try as opposed to cheating
people) tend to be better. Sadly, many of these Mom & Pop type ISPs
were consumed during the aptly described race to the bottom.

:-(

I still do consulting work with a small M&P ISP in my home town and I
have a small municipal ISP where I am now. Both are quite good in many
regards. Unfortunately, neither of them offer IPv6.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 01/08/2020 19:48, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 7/31/20 2:05 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> Nit: DHCPv6 can be (and usually is) dynamic, but it doesn't have to
>> be. It's entirely possible to have a static IP address that your OS
>> (or firewall/router) acquires via DHCPv6 (or v4).  [I set up stuff
>> like that all the time.]
>
> Counter Nit:  That's still acquiring an address via /Dynamic/ Host
> Configuration Protocol (v6).  It /is/ a /dynamic/ process.
>
> Static IP address has some very specific meaning when it comes to
> configuring TCP/IP stacks.  Specifically that you enter the address to
> be used, and it doesn't change until someone changes it in the
> configuration.
>
> Either an IP address is statically entered -or- it's dynamic.
>
> The fact that it's returning the same, possibly predictable, address is
> independent of the fact that it's a /dynamic/ process.
>
Counter counter nit: You may be *acquiring* it dynamically, but you can
enter the address to be used into DHCP, and then it doesn't change until
someone changes it in the configuration.

That was my IPv4 in the Demon days - DHCP was *guaranteed* to *always*
return the same address. So either I retrieved it via DHCP from Demon,
or I hard coded it into my computer, it didn't matter.

Cheers,
Wol

On 01/08/2020 19:52, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 7/31/20 2:01 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> There may be half way decent ISPs in the US, but I haven't seen one in
>> over 20 years since the last one I was aware of stopped dealing with
>> residential customers.  They were a victem of the "race to the bottom"
>> when not enough residential customers were willing to pay $10 per
>> month over what Comcast or US-West was charging for half-assed,
>> crippled internet access).
>
> I think there is probably a good correlation between size and desire to
> be good and provide service.
>
> I've found that smaller ISPs (who actually try as opposed to cheating
> people) tend to be better.  Sadly, many of these Mom & Pop type ISPs
> were consumed during the aptly described race to the bottom.
>
> :-(
>
> I still do consulting work with a small M&P ISP in my home town and I
> have a small municipal ISP where I am now.  Both are quite good in many
> regards.  Unfortunately, neither of them offer IPv6.
>
That's one of the good things about the UK scene. In theory, and mostly
in practice, the infrastructure (ie copper, fibre) is provided by a
company which is not allowed to provide the service over it, so a
mom-n-pop ISP can supposedly rent the link just as easily as a big ISP.

When we move I'll almost certainly move to Andrews and Arnold, who are
exactly that mom-n-pop setup that are run by a bunch of engineers, as
opposed to accountants.

Cheers,
Wol

On 2020-08-01, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@gentoo.tnetconsulting.net> wrote:

> Static IP address has some very specific meaning when it comes to
> configuring TCP/IP stacks. Specifically that you enter the address to
> be used, and it doesn't change until someone changes it in the
> configuration.

Right. That's what I was talking about, except the configuration is
centralized in the DHCP Server.

> Either an IP address is statically entered -or- it's dynamic.

Statically entered in the DHCP server doesn't count as static?

--
Grant

On 8/1/20 5:36 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
> Statically entered in the DHCP server doesn't count as static?

Not to the client computer that's running the DHCP client.

The computer is still configured to use a dynamic method to acquire it's
IP address.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 8/1/20 1:53 PM, antlists wrote:
> That's one of the good things about the UK scene. In theory, and mostly
> in practice, the infrastructure (ie copper, fibre) is provided by a
> company which is not allowed to provide the service over it, so a
> mom-n-pop ISP can supposedly rent the link just as easily as a big ISP.

For a long time, the incumbent telephone carrier was required to allow
other companies to access the DSL network and provide service.

I've not kept up with the laws and have no idea of the current state.

> When we move I'll almost certainly move to Andrews and Arnold, who are
> exactly that mom-n-pop setup that are run by a bunch of engineers, as
> opposed to accountants.

:-)



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 8/1/20 2:45 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 7/31/20 1:54 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> If I had a week with nothing to do, I'd love to try to get something
>> like that working
>
> You don't need a week.? You don't even need a day.? You can probably
> have a test tunnel working (on your computer) in less than an hour. Then
> maybe a few more hours to get it to work on your existing equipment
> (router) robustly and automatically on reboot.
>
> I encourage you to spend that initial hour.? I think? you will find that
> will be time well spent.
>
> Hurricane Electric does have something else that will take more time,
> maybe a few minutes a day over a month or so.? Their IPv6 training
> program (I last looked a number of years ago) is a good introduction to
> IPv6 in general.? Once you complete it, they'll even send you a shirt as
> a nice perk.
>
> Note:? H.E. IPv6 training is independent and not required for their
> IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnel service.
>
>> but, I assume you need a static IPv4 address.
>
> Nope.? Not really.
>
> You do need a predictable IPv4 address.? I'm using a H.E. tunnel on a
> sticky IP (DHCP with long lease and renewals) perfectly fine.
>
> If your IP does change, you just need to update the tunnel or create a
> new one to replace the old one.? This is all manged through their web
> interface.
>
>
>

Here is an short read on the acceptance and usage of IPv6:

https://ungleich.ch/u/blog/2020-the-year-of-ipv6/

So, yes I am working on using IPv6, with my RV/mobile-lab.

hth,
Jams

On 8/7/20 2:06 PM, james wrote:
> Here is an short read on the acceptance and usage of IPv6:
>
> https://ungleich.ch/u/blog/2020-the-year-of-ipv6/
>
> So, yes I am working on using IPv6, with my RV/mobile-lab.

I think that IPv6 is a good thing.

But I would be remis to not say that IPv6 is somewhat of a black sheep
in the email administrators community.

You still effectively must have IPv4 connectivity to your email server,
lest a non-trivial percentage of email fail to flow.

I also know of a number of email administrators that are specifically
dragging their feet regarding IPv6 because there hasn't yet been
critical mass use of IPv6 /for/ /email/.

In fact, some of the early IPv6 adopters for email are spammers. So
some administrators stim this tide by being exclusively IPv4.

I think dual stack for email servers is great. (Deal with the spam.)
But being exclusively IPv6 on an email server is going to be problematic.

I'm focusing on email servers because that's what this thread had
largely been about.



--
Grant. . . .
unix || die