On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 5:43 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > IPv6 support is a little rusty, but was working. I need to > reestablish an IPv6 test environment here to continually exercise the > code and figure out some remaining thorny issues. The last time I > tried it, I could connect to remote systems via IPv6 using 6in4(8) but > not local systems, and it appeared that Neighbour Discovery (the v6 > equivalent of ARP, which uses multicast) was broken. > > Some of the thorny issues are: > > - how best to operate in a mixed v4 and v6 world, where some hosts are > v4-only, some are v6-only and some (eventually a lot) are capable of > using both v4 and v6, preferably global (non-NAT, non-private, > non-local) addresses. Is the ipv6 attribute of ndb actually useful, > or should we just use the ip attribute for v4 and v6? > > - how to configure diskless v6-only (or almost only) machines at boot > time? dhcp v6 seems pointless yet complex, v6 autoconfiguration might > suffice with changes to implement dynamic dns, or dhcp v4 might be > able to carry the necessary data. > > - how best to evade v4-only IP infrastructure (routers, firewalls, > proxies, etc.). > > I'd be interested in hearing from anyone currently using v6 with Plan > 9, particularly in Japan.
Thanks for your reply. Now I am not able to send or receive any byte via v6 ip. It matches to your message. I have FreeBSD server with tunnel to Hexago. If will be there some progress in ipv6 stack I will test it. Antonin
