[asterisk-users] RE: OT (a little): IPV6 Ramifications Article

[Dean Collins]

Thanks for all the discussions guys.

I guess all of these points are know and well researched or discussed.

What I'm really after are some discussions about how product design
needs to change to accommodate our new IPV6 address space. How can R&D
departments take advantage of the coming change and build new
functionality to suit.

I know it's a very specific angle but I thin this topic is being ignored
at the moment.

 

Regards,

Dean Collins
Cognation Pty Ltd
dean at cognation.net
+1-212-203-4357 Ph
+61-2-9016-5642 (Sydney in-dial).


> -----Original Message-----
> From: asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-users-
> bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Tim Panton
> Sent: Thursday, 19 April 2007 5:24 AM
> To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] RE: OT (a little): IPV6 Ramifications
Article
> 
> Putting my Westhawk Ltd protocol consultancy hat on.....
> 
> Due to old age and good luck, westhawk as a full class C (256 ipv4
> addresses)
> so all our machines have routable adresses, putting us in a similar
> position to
> the way the rest of you would be when/if v6 takes off.
> 
> This is quite relevant to this list because people are working to add
> ipv6 support
> to asterisk, and as such the community needs to be up-to-speed on the
> benefits/drawbacks.
> 
> On 19 Apr 2007, at 05:39, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> 
> > Hi
> >
> > To be slightly less off-topic:
> >>
> ...snip...
> >>
> >> -          IPV6 is a big cost to companies like the Y2k bug was.
> >>
> >> -          That it will stop spam (hmmm Cringley you have a lot to
> >> answer for)
> >
> > Why is that?
> 
> Theoretically it would give you traceability of the original sender
> of the spam,
> down to which doorknob.
> Of course all that really tells you is which doorknob has a virus.
> 
> 
> >
> >>
> >> -          That Asia is leading the way but we can ignore it as
> >> the USA
> >> have many many IPV4 addresses to use for the future.
> >>
> >
> > If you have no shortage of IP addresses in the US, then why is it
that
> > when you want to set up a home IP address you have a use a NAT
router
> > (of some sort: be that a device or a software on a computer)? This
> > means
> > that peer-to-peer protocols don't Just Work [tm].
> >
> > We all know that SIP is generally broken in the presense of NAT and
> > how
> > multimple partial workarounds have been found.
> >
> > Any VoIP call between two ANT-ed clients will required a proxy
outside
> > the NAT. Hence more delay and more complicated setup.
> 
> That's the theory, but if you remove the NAT router, you have to put
> an equally extensive firewall in place - probably stricter because
> all the
> devices in your network are now routable. SIP/RTP 's bad design makes
it
> very hard to firewall well without running a full proxy in the router.
> (Ok, at least you don't need STUN if you have ipv6).
> 
> So you still have to mess with the (more complex because v6 is
> tricky) firewall
> to let the right RTP/SIP packets in.
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > And less on-topic:
> >
> > See if you can find anything interesting under http://laptop.org/ /
> > http://wiki.laptop.org/ . They use ipv6 as part as their effort to
> > create a set of computers that are always connected. The mesh
> > networking
> > infrastructure there is interesting.
> 
> Now that's a problem worth solving , retaining your IP address
> irrespective
> of how/where your handset is connected. v6 helps, but not much.
> 
> Tim Panton
> 
> www.westhawk.co.uk/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --
> 
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users