IPv6


Stu Mitchell
 

Is IPv6 implementation in the roadmap? I'm trying to convert my lab/shack LAN networks to IPv6 only, but looks like I'll have to stay dual stack for a while. N1MM, DXLab and VE7CC seem to be IPv4 only.

Thanks for any info you can provide. 

73


Dave AA6YQ
 

+ AA6YQ comments below

Is IPv6 implementation in the roadmap?

+ No, as I'm not aware of a compelling reason to add it. Have you run out of address space? Are you interacting with hosts that don't support IPv4? If so, for what purpose?

I'm trying to convert my lab/shack LAN networks to IPv6 only

+ What's the advantage of doing this?

but looks like I'll have to stay dual stack for a while. N1MM, DXLab and VE7CC seem to be IPv4 only.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ


Stu Mitchell
 

Well, I think there are lots of advantages of moving to IPv6.... but mostly from a large enterprise perspective. For example, large enterprises are running out of RFC-1918 addresses. Interoperability is a pain. For example, when two companies merge, they most likely have overlapping address space, which causes one part of the company to renumber or install translation mechanisms. So IPv6 is a great option because you can solve these problems with unique IP address space. Note - running an IPv6 network and an IPv4 network essentially means you're running two networks. So ditching IPv4 lets you get back to running a single network.

Most people don't even know they are already running IPv6. It's enabled by default in Windows, Linux and Macs. If you have a provider like Comcast, you can bet you're running IPv6. After you get past the long addresses, it's really pretty cool.

However, from the perspective of a typical Ham, IPv6 doesn't buy much at all. They probably have a 192.168.x.x address on their LAN and it gets translated into another IPv4 address at their router. All the DX clusters have IPv4 addresses, etc. So why change?

In general, the world is moving towards IPv6. 35% of the google traffic is now IPv6. As I wrote above, there is a business case for IPv6. The Feds are supposed to be IPv6 only by 2025. So eventually, we need to figure out how to move to IPv6 to simplify management. Unfortunately, applications that don't support IPv6 impede the transition. You can't turn off IPv4 and there isn't a cleaver mechanism to translate IPv4 into IPv6. There is for the other way around. (e.g. DNS64/NAT64)

Is the sky falling - no, of course not. IPv4 will be around for a long time, especially for typical home installations. However, I think IPv6 should be on the roadmap. At a minimum, there should be some research into adding it to DXLAB. I'm not a programmer, so I don't know how hard it would be to add.

Hopefully, this doesn't start some sort of long string of e-mails. I'm just asking the question because I didn't know. Thanks so much for your work and a great program!

73

Stu2, W7IY

On 5/8/2021 5:07 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
+ AA6YQ comments below

Is IPv6 implementation in the roadmap?

+ No, as I'm not aware of a compelling reason to add it. Have you run out of address space? Are you interacting with hosts that don't support IPv4? If so, for what purpose?

I'm trying to convert my lab/shack LAN networks to IPv6 only

+ What's the advantage of doing this?

but looks like I'll have to stay dual stack for a while. N1MM, DXLab and VE7CC seem to be IPv4 only.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ







Dave AA6YQ
 

+ AA6YQ comments below
Well, I think there are lots of advantages of moving to IPv6.... but mostly from a large enterprise perspective. For example, large enterprises are running out of RFC-1918 addresses. Interoperability is a pain. For example, when two companies merge, they most likely have overlapping address space, which causes one part of the company to renumber or install translation mechanisms. So IPv6 is a great option because you can solve these problems with unique IP address space. Note - running an IPv6 network and an IPv4 network essentially means you're running two networks. So ditching IPv4 lets you get back to running a single network.

Most people don't even know they are already running IPv6. It's enabled by default in Windows, Linux and Macs. If you have a provider like Comcast, you can bet you're running IPv6. After you get past the long addresses, it's really pretty cool.

However, from the perspective of a typical Ham, IPv6 doesn't buy much at all. They probably have a 192.168.x.x address on their LAN and it gets translated into another IPv4 address at their router. All the DX clusters have IPv4 addresses, etc. So why change?

In general, the world is moving towards IPv6. 35% of the google traffic is now IPv6. As I wrote above, there is a business case for IPv6. The Feds are supposed to be IPv6 only by 2025. So eventually, we need to figure out how to move to IPv6 to simplify management. Unfortunately, applications that don't support IPv6 impede the transition. You can't turn off IPv4 and there isn't a cleaver mechanism to translate IPv4 into IPv6. There is for the other way around. (e.g. DNS64/NAT64)

Is the sky falling - no, of course not. IPv4 will be around for a long time, especially for typical home installations. However, I think IPv6 should be on the roadmap. At a minimum, there should be some research into adding it to DXLAB. I'm not a programmer, so I don't know how hard it would be to add.

+ Based on this Microsoft document

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/winsock/ipv6-guide-for-windows-sockets-applications-2

+ support for IPv6 would require updating each DXLab application to switch from one set of Microsoft network components to another, and to enable users to specify the much larger IP addresses required by IPv6. None of this is likely rocket science, but the testing and tuning efforts alone would be significant, especially for a performance-sensitive application like SpotCollector. Since as you point out IPv6 provides no benefit to the typical ham, spending time on an IPv6 update instead of on the many other tasks on the enhancement lists cannot be justified.

+ Note that I do not publish a Roadmap for DXLab. What I publish are my priorities:

1. answering questions

2. correcting reported defects in the DXLab applications or their documentation

3. implementing high-value, low-cost enhancements

4. implementing high-value enhancements

Hopefully, this doesn't start some sort of long string of e-mails. I'm just asking the question because I didn't know. 
+ Your question was entirely appropriate. Whenever someone poses a question about something not on my radar, I consider it as an opportunity to be educated.

        73,

              Dave, AA6YQ


Peter Laws / N5UWY
 

On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 7:39 PM Stu Mitchell <stu@stu2.net> wrote:

Well, I think there are lots of advantages of moving to IPv6.... but
mostly from a large enterprise perspective. For example, large
enterprises are running out of RFC-1918 addresses. Interoperability is a
pain. For example, when two companies merge, they most likely have
"We're running out of IP space quickly and IPng is going to have to be
implemented in a couple of years." - Instructor (paraphrased) in the
first networking class I took in 1994.

RFC 1918 was a bad idea that only put off the inevitable. Our network
at the office is still solidly IPv4 but we just had a re-org and,
surprise, the incoming network has a 10-network that duplicates
addresses that already exist. Smart people warned everyone before i
was "law" -- https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1627 No one
listened. And those that were in favor probably retired before the
reality of duplicate addresses everywhere became apparent.

I had occasion to configure some stuff on IPv6 for one of our
constituent groups at work and the more I played with it, the more I
wished we'd moved to IPv6 in the 1990s.

But I don't see IPv6 happening in the vast majority of amateur radio
stations in the near future. Given the nature of a certain percentage
of support requests on this and other lists, that's probably just as
well.

--
Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!