current state of IPv6 support in Debian

>>>>> Friedemann Stoyan <fstoyan DeleteThis @swapon.de> writes:
>>>>> Ivan Shmakov wrote:

>> Surprised by the clarity of IPv6, I now have thoughts of abandoning
>> IPv4 on my home LAN (... where the RFC 1918 lie...) altogether. So
>> far, I've noticed the following problems that make me delay this
>> move. The list is as per Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 (Lenny), unless
>> stated otherwise.

> None of 3 available tftp servers works with IPv6 in Lenny:

Thanks!

> tftpd-hpa:
> Jul 10 15:03:58 wlftp in.tftpd[16656]: received address was not AF_INET, please check your inetd config
> Jul 10 15:03:58 wlftp inetd[16643]: /usr/sbin/in.tftpd: exit status 76

Wasn't Bug#437651 solved by just deprecating ``inetd mode''
altogether?

> atftpd:
[...]

> tftpd:
[...]

I. e., Bug#536508 and Bug#536509. Hopefully trivial; will try
to investigate them a bit later.

[...]

--
FSF associate member #7257


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ipv6-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

>>>>> Jeroen Massar <jeroen RemoveThis @unfix.org> writes:

Thanks for the comments!

IS> Surprised by the clarity of IPv6, I now have thoughts of abandoning
IS> IPv4 on my home LAN (... where the RFC 1918 lie...) altogether.
IS> So far, I've noticed the following problems that make me delay this
IS> move. The list is as per Debian GNU/Linux 5.0 (Lenny), unless
IS> stated otherwise.

JM> First question: why drop IPv4 at all?

The question for me is: why to maintain two semi-independent
networks? (Not that I want to avoid the challenge, too.)

JM> For the next 5-10 years at least IMHO it would be futile to do so
JM> unless you want to cut yourself off from the Interwebz.

My home LAN has a single (non-RFC 1918) IPv4 address, and even
that one is tunneled via a distant provider, so the users
usually rely on NAT. (And there're actually a couple of routers
doing NAT -- one is mine, and one provider's.) I don't think
that using NAT64 instead of plain old IPv4 NAT on my side is
going to make any difference.

IS> I wonder, are there other specific problems to check for, and
IS> what's the state of the ones listed?

IS> * NAT64; (should I try to write a quick and dirty one myself?)

JM> What is your need for NAT64? If you just want to look at IPv4
JM> websites (in the case of disabling IPv4 and then use a HTTP
JM> proxy...)

JM> Other solution that scales and works: SOCKS, v5 of course due to
JM> passing of hostnames and thus the SOCKS server doing the lookups.

Huh? Is the support for SOCKS in applications is that wide
nowadays?

IS> * Squid 3.0; Squid 3.1 supports IPv6, but is still not in Sid;

JM> Squid developers are then also very lazy and slow wrt IPv6.

I guess I have to check it myself.

JM> http://cacheboy.net/ is probably the answer to that; and of course
JM> Apache2 works fine too.

IIUC, Apache 2 is not a cache?

IS> * `flow-tools' and `fprobe-ulog'; (use `nfdump' and `softflowd'
IS> instead? oh well, `nfdump' depends on... `ttf-dejavu'! thanks to
IS> the `librrd4' dependency);

JM> If you require gratuit NetFlow something NFSen/NFdump is the best
JM> you can get,

?

$ apt-cache search nfsen
$

JM> if you have a wad of cash then there are other options .

JM> You need NFv9/IPFIX though for actually supporting IPv6. There are
JM> various probes that support IPv6, google around for IPFIX helps as
JM> generally they then also have IPv6 support.

It seems that `softflowd' and `nfdump' support NetFlow v9, and
also IPv6.

IS> * VoIP -- apparently, neither Ekiga nor Linphone support IPv6; any
IS> suggestions? (CLI software is preferred, but will consider anything
IS> capable of IPv6);

JM> Twinkle works with IPv6.

ACK. (The version in ArchLinux, that my colleague have tested
today, apparently doesn't.)

JM> For Windows I recommend http://www.phonerlite.de/

ACK. (Not that I'm that interested, but my colleagues could
probably be...)

IS> * today I saw mount( failing to mount an NFS volume over IPv6; I
IS> didn't investigated it further as of this moment;

JM> Some people claim it works, some others don't. Prolly a
JM> userspace/kernelspace combination issue.

I'm going to investigate it later.

IS> * (still have to IPv6-check Asterisk and Yate);

JM> Asterisk has patches (www.asteriskv6.org), but they are not in the
JM> main tree (this seems to be an upstream issue as....) FreeSWITCH,
JM> which is not in Debian yet, does IPv6, SCTP, Jingle, ZRTP (if you
JM> have the SDK) etc all out of the box (fetch from svn &
JM> dpkg-buildpackage -b, install debian packages, presto) The patches
JM> for both come from the same people, thus I guess there is a problem
JM> at * which is blocking it all, which is a shame (and caused me to
JM> switch to freeswitch, which does have all the good working
JM> features)

ACK.

IS> * (still have to investigate whether my D-Link WiFi access point
IS> passes IPv6 or not; but wait, that isn't related to either Debian
IS> or my home LAN.)

JM> It is if you run Debian on the thing

Did anyone had success with running Debian on D-Link DAP-1150?

JM> [as a side-note: generally OpenWRT does a perfect job as an IPv6
JM> gateway]

--
FSF associate member #7257


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ipv6-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

>>>>> "AR" == Andrew Ruthven <andrew.RemoveThis@etc.gen.nz> writes:
>>>>> "IS" == Ivan Shmakov wrote:

IS> * Squid 3.0; Squid 3.1 supports IPv6, but is still not in Sid;

AR> Squid 3.0 has IPv6 support, but it isn't enabled in Debian. Andrew
AR> McMillan has IPv6 enabled packages which a number of people
AR> (including myself) are using.

It seems that these under dists/lenny/ are for Architecture:
i386, while I need it for an amd64 system.

AR> You just need to add the right flag to configure.

ACK, thanks.

IS> * VoIP -- apparently, neither Ekiga nor Linphone support IPv6; any
IS> suggestions? (CLI software is preferred, but will consider anything
IS> capable of IPv6);

AR> Oh? I thought that Ekiga did have IPv6 support.

May it be that I just don't know how to use it? How do I write
a sip: URI with an IPv6 address?

[...]

--
FSF associate member #7257


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ipv6-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

>>>>> "JM" == Jeroen Massar <jeroen.DeleteThis@unfix.org> writes:
>>>>> "IS" == Ivan Shmakov wrote:

[...]

IS> * VoIP -- apparently, neither Ekiga nor Linphone support IPv6; any
IS> suggestions? (CLI software is preferred, but will consider anything
IS> capable of IPv6);

JM> Twinkle works with IPv6. For Windows I recommend
JM> http://www.phonerlite.de/

Does it currently support RTP over IPv6 (or what is meant by
transport in the fragment below)?

--cut: twinkle-1.4.2/NEWS --
22 jan 2007 - 1.0
=================
....
- SIP parser supports IPv6 addresses in SIP URI's and Via headers
(Note: Twinkle does not support transport over IPv6)
--cut: twinkle-1.4.2/NEWS --

[...]

--
FSF associate member #7257


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ipv6-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 11:35:59PM +0700, Ivan Shmakov wrote:

> * VoIP -- apparently, neither Ekiga nor Linphone support IPv6;

Linphone supports IPv6, it is not enabled by default. Look in the
preferences. I never actually tested the IPv6 support, though.

--
Lionel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ipv6-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

On 21.08.09 00:50, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
>
> > tftpd-hpa:
> > Jul 10 15:03:58 wlftp in.tftpd[16656]: received address was not AF_INET, please check your inetd config
> > Jul 10 15:03:58 wlftp inetd[16643]: /usr/sbin/in.tftpd: exit status 76
>
> Wasn't Bug#437651 solved by just deprecating ``inetd mode''
> altogether?

No it doesn't. It seems that http://bugs.debian.org/513642 enables IPv6
Support in tftp-hpa.

Regards
Friedemann


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ipv6-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

>>>>> "LEM" == Lionel Elie Mamane <lionel.RemoveThis@mamane.lu> writes:
>>>>> "IS" == Ivan Shmakov wrote:

IS> * VoIP -- apparently, neither Ekiga nor Linphone support IPv6;

LEM> Linphone supports IPv6, it is not enabled by default. Look in the
LEM> preferences. I never actually tested the IPv6 support, though.

I've tested it and it appears to work, thanks! (And it also has
a CLI as a bonus.)

$ cat .linphonerc
....

[sip]
....
use_ipv6=1

....
$

linphonec> help ipv6
'ipv6 status' : show ipv6 usage status.
'ipv6 enable' : enable the use of the ipv6 network.
'ipv6 disable' : do not use ipv6 network.
linphonec>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ipv6-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

>>>>> "JM" == Jeroen Massar <jeroen DeleteThis @unfix.org> writes:
>>>>> "IS" == Ivan Shmakov wrote:

[...]

IS> * today I saw mount( failing to mount an NFS volume over IPv6; I
IS> didn't investigated it further as of this moment;

JM> Some people claim it works, some others don't. Prolly a
JM> userspace/kernelspace combination issue.

Apparently, it isn't going work in Debian Lenny, as, IIUC, the
packaged version of portmap( is IPv4-only.

So far, I've found the following references to the problem:

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=515128
http://nfsv4.bullopensource.org/doc/nfs_ipv6.php

[...]

--
FSF associate member #7257


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ipv6-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

I'm still investigating which of the Debian packages I use
aren't able to use IPv6. The current results are as follows.

squid3 -- IPv6 support is expected to be available in the upcoming
Squid 3.1;

portmap -- lacks IPv6 support, necessary for NFS over IPv6 to work
(Bug#515128);

dhcp3-server -- apparently lacks IPv6 support; OTOH, ISC DHCP 4 is
not in Debian, IIUC;

apcupsd -- apparently lacks IPv6 support;

linphone -- has IPv6 support;

freeswitch -- does IPv6, but still not in Debian (Bug#513606);

tftpd-hpa, atftpd, tftpd -- fail to support IPv6 (Bug#437651? or is
it working only as of tftp-hpa 0.49-1? Bug#536508, Bug#536509);

hddtemp -- seems to lack IPv6 support, though it's a minor issue.

PS. It's likely there're more.

--
FSF associate member #7257


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ipv6-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

>>>>> "AM" == Andrew McMillan <andrew.RemoveThis@morphoss.com> writes:
>>>>> "IS" == Ivan Shmakov wrote:

[...]

IS> dhcp3-server -- apparently lacks IPv6 support; OTOH, ISC DHCP 4 is
IS> not in Debian, IIUC;

AM> There are a couple of DHCPv6 servers.

Namely, dibbler-server and wide-dhcpv6-server. Does anyone have
an experience of using these? How do these compare to the ISC
DHCP 4.x (w. r. t. the DHCPv6 support)?

AM> DHCP does not support IPv6 and needs a completely new protocol.

Do you mean the ISC DHCP implementation specifically?

--cut: https://www.isc.org/software/dhcp/4.1.1b2 --
ISC DHCP 4.1.x will have several new DHCPv6 features that were not
in DHCP 4.0.x. These are planned to include:

* Support for the rapid-commit option on the client side

* Prefix Delegation support

* IA_TA address support

* A basic DHCPv6 relay agent, dhcrelay6
--cut: https://www.isc.org/software/dhcp/4.1.1b2 --

Yet again, I see no traces of ISC DHCP 4.x in Debian Sid.

[...]

--
FSF associate member #7257


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ipv6-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

>>>>> "AM" == Andrew McMillan <andrew.DeleteThis@morphoss.com> writes:

IS> I'm still investigating which of the Debian packages I use aren't
IS> able to use IPv6. The current results are as follows.

IS> squid3 -- IPv6 support is expected to be available in the upcoming
IS> Squid 3.1;

AM> I have packages of this, but was waiting for the maintainer to
AM> upload his ones. I guess I can upload these if the maintainer is
AM> happy for me to do that.

To be honest, I thoght that the reason why Squid 3.1 is not in
Debian is that it's still beta?

[...]

IS> PS. It's likely there're more.

AM> Yeah, it is. For example I have seen problems with CUPS over IPv6
AM> where you access the cups server using an
AM> http://[dead:beef:cafe::f00d]:631/ type of address.

ACK. I don't use CUPS at the moment, but I guess I may need it.

AM> Also the squid log parser 'sarg' completely fails with IPv6 but
AM> perhaps there are alternatives that work.

AM> The version of dircproxy in Sid also does not support IPv6. I have
AM> packages of the current HEAD which does, however.

ACK. Though, again, no concern over these for me at this
moment.

--
FSF associate member #7257


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ipv6-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

Hi there


Andrew McMillan wrote:

> On Sat, 2009-08-29 at 02:38 +0700, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
>> I'm still investigating which of the Debian packages I use
>> aren't able to use IPv6. The current results are as follows.
>>
>> squid3 -- IPv6 support is expected to be available in the upcoming
>> Squid 3.1;
>
> I have packages of this, but was waiting for the maintainer to upload
> his ones. I guess I can upload these if the maintainer is happy for me
> to do that.

Which Squid 3.1 version? Does it have the latest security fixes?

<Cut>


Regards,
Rob
--
There are 689 days until Central Registry IPv4 address exhaustion.

>>>>> "AM" == Andrew McMillan <andrew.RemoveThis@morphoss.com> writes:
>>>>> "IS" == Ivan Shmakov wrote:
>>>>> "AM" == Andrew McMillan <andrew.RemoveThis@morphoss.com> writes:
>>>>> "IS" == Ivan Shmakov wrote:

[...]

IS> dhcp3-server -- apparently lacks IPv6 support; OTOH, ISC DHCP 4 is
IS> not in Debian, IIUC;

AM> There are a couple of DHCPv6 servers.

IS> Namely, dibbler-server and wide-dhcpv6-server. Does anyone have an
IS> experience of using these? How do these compare to the ISC DHCP
IS> 4.x (w. r. t. the DHCPv6 support)?

AM> DHCP does not support IPv6 and needs a completely new protocol.

IS> Do you mean the ISC DHCP implementation specifically?

AM> OK, so it appears that the ISC DHCP server now includes DHCPv6
AM> support, but it is still a different protocol.

Yes. It's a bit unfortunate that the name of implementation now
references just one of the two protocols actually implemented.

AM> I haven't used that for DHCPv6 myself - I use wide-dhcpv6 which
AM> works just fine (for the subset of the values of 'fine' which
AM> DHCPv6 supports, sadly) and I have tried dibbler but with limited
AM> success.

ACK.

AM> Of course on the LAN the normal address assignment process is with
AM> radvd, rather than DHCPv6, which works well if unfortunately
AM> without providing some of the other settings that DHCPv4 is capable
AM> of.

Actually, what I hope to find is the possibility for the DHCPv6
session to trigger a DNS (AAAA RR) update. I don't know if it's
possible at all given the DHCPv6 implementations listed above,
neither do I actually believe that it's the Right Way to do.

AM> I think these issues are more to do with the design of RA being
AM> older than the design of DHCPv4, and the likelihood that we will do
AM> things differently in a v6 world. Certainly I find that running v6
AM> at home I tend to think a little differently about networks.

I've found that IPv6 brought to me a completely different view
at computer networks. In particular, I was quite surprised that
a lot of the IPv4 stuff I did for years (NAT, SSH and HTTP
CONNECT tunneling, application protocols proxies, etc. -- all
this to overcome the ``RFC 1918 problem'') is not of that acute
necessity in the IPv6 world.

... And, for the sake of an experiment, I'm currently running an
IPv6 network with my colleagues at work.

[...]

IS> Yet again, I see no traces of ISC DHCP 4.x in Debian Sid.

AM> No, I guess not, but there are good alternatives.

I guess I'll have to try them.

(Packaging ISC DHCP 4 could probably be a worthwhile experience,
too.)

--
FSF associate member #7257


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ipv6-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org