[TriLUG] IPv6 workshop

[Greg Cox]

Hi Jonathon,

I do appreciate how much you put into your note, but, I'm afraid I have
to go right to the nonstarter point:

> So if you decided to switch to
> another broker that offered SIT tunnel brokering, your tunnel
> configuration would change very little, but you'd have to use all new
> IPv6 addresses, which is a far more painful change.

In my situation, I think this is something that blocks the whole process.
What happens when HE's generosity wears off?  What happens when I move
me and all my boxes to Portlandia?  Or, if we get magical fiber bestowed
upon us and we all rush to convert providers?  If there's the IP equivalent
of Local Number Portability, lemme know.  It's a level of annoyance I'd
just as soon avoid doing multiple times, particularly when (a) much of
my gear has no need for external visibility, but DOES have a need for
knowing the names/numbers of the internal service hosts, (b) the existing
NAT model isn't a pain point, and (c) there's no reason my boxes need to
reach the larger v6 Internet, but they do want to hit v4.

> If you're using Linux as your router, you might have to change your
> feelings on NAT with IPv6.  The kernels I've been using do not have
> a NAT table for ip6tables.  AFAIK, it's technically possible to
> perform NAT operations with IPv6, but it's generally discouraged
> and it seems the Linux kernel team might be in strong agreement on that.

More's the pity.  I grant that I'm being stubborn here, but, the "look,
you can have public addresses.. in fact, you pretty much HAVE to!" is
an argument AGAINST v6 to me.  Private islands have a win, namely
guaranteed permanent free(as in Euros) ownership of the space, at the
(low low) price of network shenanigans.


So, from what I've read, it looks like NAT64/DNS64 might be closest to
what I want.  DNS64 just got popped into BIND 9.8.0, so it should give
me more time to get all my VMs moved up from lenny to wheezy, and see
from there.