Readiness for IPV6

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
21

> i still find some of the stuff extremely user-unfriendly (winxp) for
> manual native configuation, and i'm sure other users do too. also, the
> amount of support for it is still sketchy (whether in the transport or
> from the applications themselves).

Yes, after trying to help a friend get IPv6 running on his WindowsXP
system (you have to drop into a DOS box.. (but they did away with DOS,
right?)), he decided it wasn't worth it if he had to do it that way.

At some point M$ might make it user friendly for the windows users but
at this point it's /not/ something that joe blow customer will be doing.

start run cmd ipv6install

How hard is that?

Since you brought up Microsoft, you might want to go to

http://www.microsoft.com/windows.netserver/technologies/ipv6/default.asp

Also, from the Research web site

Windows .NET Server and beyond The next version of Windows will include
the first fully-supported release of the Microsoft IPv6 stack. This stack
has been designed for full production use, suitable for live commercial
deployments

Hope that helps.

> Regards
>
> --Rob

--
Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified
http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203

Christian

22

start run cmd ipv6install

That's not what the KB article I read said, besides the fact that actually
adding addresses/routes is a DOS prompt routine.

Windows .NET Server and beyond The next version of Windows will include
the first fully-supported release of the Microsoft IPv6 stack. This stack
has been designed for full production use, suitable for live commercial
deployments

Depends on how you define 'suitable', I'm expecting a whole new breed of
exploits.

23

Matthew S. Hallacy wrote:

> start run cmd ipv6install

That's not what the KB article I read said, besides the fact
that actually
adding addresses/routes is a DOS prompt routine.

<flame>
Ah.. so everywhere you see 'text' and have to input 'text' is DOS?
Cool bash == DOS, shells are DOS.

A thing like this:
8<---------
Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195]
(C) Copyright 1985-2000 Microsoft Corp.

C:\>
--------->8
is called a "Command Prompt" and has nothing to do with DOS.
Why doesn't anybody complain when it's on *ix boxes ?
It's shell everywhere then :slight_smile:

> Windows .NET Server and beyond The next version of Windows will

include

> the first fully-supported release of the Microsoft IPv6 stack. This

stack

> has been designed for full production use, suitable for live

commercial

> deployments

Depends on how you define 'suitable', I'm expecting a whole
new breed of exploits.

They didn't 'exploit' me yet in the last 3 years I am using the
development versions of the stack :slight_smile:
And everything has bugs

</Flame>

And now for some usefull content:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/howitworks/communications/
nameadrmgmt/introipv6.asp

And you'd probably like http://www.hs247.com/ too with loads of links
or what about: http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Protocols/IP/IPng/

And as for your "it's difficult':
http://www.ipng.nl/index.php3?page=setup.html&forcepage=windows.html
Or the single line: "ipv6 adu 3/fec0::1"

Interface 3 (site 1): Local Area Connection
  uses Neighbor Discovery
  link-level address: 00-d0-b7-8f-5d-42
    preferred address fec0::1, infinite/infinite
    preferred address 3ffe:8114:2000:240:2d0:b7ff:fe8f:5d42,
2591593s/604393s (addrconf)

Tada :wink:

I think the problem is reading the docs is difficult.
IPv6 will be/is autoconfig all the way fortunatly so those
'native config' tools isn't going to be used by a lot of people.

Maybe also a nice tool for people saying "but IPv4 has a GUI on windows"
you might like to type 'netsh' ones in your "DOS" prompt :wink:

btw.. DOS == command.com, NT = cmd.exe, there *is* a difference.

</end of (re-)education>

Greets,
Jeroen

24

<flame>
Ah.. so everywhere you see 'text' and have to input 'text' is DOS?
Cool bash == DOS, shells are DOS.

A thing like this:
8<---------
Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195]
(C) Copyright 1985-2000 Microsoft Corp.

C:\>
--------->8
is called a "Command Prompt" and has nothing to do with DOS.
Why doesn't anybody complain when it's on *ix boxes ?
It's shell everywhere then :slight_smile:

Pardon me:

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]

C:\>command /?
Starts a new instance of the MS-DOS command interpreter.

COMMAND [[drive:]path] [device] [/E:nnnnn] [/P] [/C string] [/MSG]

[snip rest of output]

Looks like it still claims to be the MS-DOS command interpreter to me,
using the 'user friendly' name of 'Command Prompt' doesn't change
what it is.

[snip]

They didn't 'exploit' me yet in the last 3 years I am using the
development versions of the stack :slight_smile:
And everything has bugs

As soon as it's in use enough for an exploit to be useful, it will be.

</Flame>

[snip links]

Don't forget
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/techinfo/administration/ipv6/default.asp

Which instructs you to go to a command prompt, like I said =)

And as for your "it's difficult':
http://www.ipng.nl/index.php3?page=setup.html&forcepage=windows.html
Or the single line: "ipv6 adu 3/fec0::1"

Interface 3 (site 1): Local Area Connection
  uses Neighbor Discovery
  link-level address: 00-d0-b7-8f-5d-42
    preferred address fec0::1, infinite/infinite
    preferred address 3ffe:8114:2000:240:2d0:b7ff:fe8f:5d42,
2591593s/604393s (addrconf)

Tada :wink:

Yes, this is too difficult for 'joe blow user', as I said.

I think the problem is reading the docs is difficult.
IPv6 will be/is autoconfig all the way fortunatly so those
'native config' tools isn't going to be used by a lot of people.

Users do not read documentation.

Maybe also a nice tool for people saying "but IPv4 has a GUI on windows"
you might like to type 'netsh' ones in your "DOS" prompt :wink:

If a user can't point, click, and go, they're unlikely to do something,
I've dealt with people that went over a month without their internet access
simply because they were afraid they would have to troubleshoot their internet
connection over the phone.

btw.. DOS == command.com, NT = cmd.exe, there *is* a difference.

Yes, one is named command.com, one is named cmd.exe, it was easier
than typing start <cmd> from the DOS command prompt.

25

Pardon me:
[brand new command prompt from the WinXP command prompt button]
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\Vivien>command
Microsoft(R) Windows DOS
(C)Copyright Microsoft Corp 1990-2001.

C:\DOCUME~1\VIVIEN>
C:\DOCUME~1\VIVIEN>

It looks to me like you have cmd.exe, which is a 32-bit Windoze-native
etc shell, and then you have command.com which is used to run legacy DOS
stuff. Command.com feels a _lot_ slower to me, too.

Vivien

26

At the risk of prolonging an exceptionally off-topic thread... if you run the (deprecated) MS-DOS command interpreter in Windows XP (command.exe) rather than the Win 2K / XP CLI (cmd.exe), you should not be surprised when command.exe tells you that it is what it is -- a version of the MS-DOS command interpreter for Win 2000 / XP.

If you run cmd.exe on Win 2K (I don't have XP), you get:

C:\>cmd /?
Starts a new instance of the Windows 2000 command interpreter

CMD [/A | /U] [/Q] [/D] [/E:ON | /E:OFF] [/F:ON | /F:OFF] [/V:ON | /V:OFF]
     [[/S] [/C | /K] string]

And now, back to our regularly scheduled thread about whether IPv6 will ever take off.

Cheers,

Mathew

27

Thus spake "Matthew S. Hallacy" <poptix@techmonkeys.org>

Looks like it still claims to be the MS-DOS command interpreter to me,
using the 'user friendly' name of 'Command Prompt' doesn't change
what it is.

cmd.exe is a program which interprets MS-DOS commands. That doesn't mean it's
DOS.

> btw.. DOS == command.com, NT = cmd.exe, there *is* a difference.

Yes, one is named command.com, one is named cmd.exe, it was easier
than typing start <cmd> from the DOS command prompt.

cmd.exe is a native Win32 console app; command.com is a CP/M program image
running under DOS emulation in Virtual8086 mode. There's a big difference
there.

My PC can quack, but that doesn't mean it's a duck.

> I think the problem is reading the docs is difficult.
> IPv6 will be/is autoconfig all the way fortunatly so those
> 'native config' tools isn't going to be used by a lot of people.

Users do not read documentation.

Presumably the final release of the IPv6 stack will be GUIfied like the IPv4
stack was. Microsoft is fortunately more concerned with getting their stack
working than creating an idiot-proof installer for a beta product.

S

28

Stephen Sprunk wrote:

<SNIP>

cmd.exe is a native Win32 console app; command.com is a CP/M
program image running under DOS emulation in Virtual8086 mode.

There's a

big difference there.

I am glad at least one other person knows the difference :wink:
(And probably anyone who did read the docs knows this)

> Users do not read documentation.

But people reading NANOG should, at least I hope you do.
And with all the nice and spiffy autoconfig in IPv6 a user
shouldn't be reading nor has to read it either :slight_smile:

Presumably the final release of the IPv6 stack will be
GUIfied like the IPv4 stack was. Microsoft is fortunately more

concerned with

getting their stack working than creating an idiot-proof installer for

a beta product.
Which is a good thing(tm)

As for the on-topic part of this message I would like to point people at
a very good
presentation Steve Deering gave at isoc.nl a couple of months ago here
in the Netherlands:
Powerpoint:
http://isoc.nl/activ/cursusmateriaal/2002-Masterclass-IETF-IPv6.ppt
OpenOffice/StarOffice:
http://isoc.nl/activ/cursusmateriaal/2002-Masterclass-IETF-IPv6.sxi

It contains a basic IPv6 intro (which users could also read :wink: and a has
a nice deployment
projection at the end of the slides. For people not wanting to take a
looky at this
presentation, the projection is:
~2003 Q4 Asia
~2004 Q4 Europe
~2006 Q2 America

So you US folks should start doing something with IPv6 if we take these
numbers into account.
You are tagging behind europe for almost 18 months!
(btw, Steve wrote this up and he is american, so no cross-continent wars
please :slight_smile:

Greets,
Jeroen

29

You should be using cmd.exe under xp:
C:\Documents and Settings\winter>cmd /?
Starts a new instance of the Windows XP command interpreter

--Phil

30

Hi

start run cmd ipv6install

How hard is that?

that'll give me a 6to4, if not with a local address if nd is working, then
to either 6bone or microsoft (it sends out proto 41 packets to 2 hosts on
the net).

I want simple native static v6 address. FreeBSD was quick 'n easy.

Since you brought up Microsoft, you might want to go to

http://www.microsoft.com/windows.netserver/technologies/ipv6/default.asp

Also, from the Research web site

Windows .NET Server and beyond The next version of Windows will include
the first fully-supported release of the Microsoft IPv6 stack. This stack
has been designed for full production use, suitable for live commercial
deployments

they don't actually state much on those pages :frowning:

Regards

--Rob

31

Multicast won't become pervasive until there are
applications that use it (as has been pointed out in this
thread), and those applications won't be widely-used until
there is some momentum with high-speed connectivity (ie >
1Mbps and probably more like 10+Mb/s).

Many multicast applications (primarily research/education
networks) are for interactive communication, and useful
interactivity requires lots more bandwidth and much lower
latency and jitter than is available even on cable/DSL.

If you have a chance to see what's going on with multicast
(and anything else) on Internet2, you'll see what happens
when bandwidth and latency become less-significant problems.
The expansion of Internet2 to diverse disciplines as well as
K-12 and non-research higher-ed schools will expose a larger
and more diverse group to these applications.

Though IPv6 uses multicast more than IPv4, the default use
is basically a replacement for existing broadcast-based
functions (ARP, DHCP, etc). IPv6 will not magically solve
multicast problems outside the local subnet. Multicast being
integrated into IPv6 will probably make it more palatable
than it is now.

Pete.