On Monday 07 November 2005 21:46, Curt Howland wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I'm implementing IPv6 amongst a couple of hosts on the lan in order to
> test functionality and such.
>
> When I point Konqueror ftp:// at the other host by ipv4 192.168.1.20,
> it works fine. If I use a name with ::192:168:1:20 defined, it fails
> with "malformed URL".

did you write
ftp://::192:168:1:20/

I am not sure this would be a valid URL.

Googling brought some URLs in this form
ftp://[::192:168:1:20]/

Cheers,
Kevin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBDb8VRnKMhG6pzZJIRAiryAJ9wePNgGW5u3vDc7AOfVh SZpHkx7QCffOc8
Vc0zj4jRGOqpQ/pFwL4PgKk=
=HLrY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Monday 07 November 2005 16:21, Kevin Krammer was heard to say:
> did you write
> ftp://::192:168:1:20/

Actually, what I wrote was ftp://corwin6/

With /etc/hosts:

::192:168:1:20 corwin6

But I also did try the addressing as you suggest. No difference.

> Googling brought some URLs in this form
> ftp://[::192:168:1:20]/

Let me see... Nope. "could not connect to host ::192:168:1:20"

Also, if I try ftp://[corwin6]/ it just strips off the [] and fails
anyway.

Darn, command line FTP isn't working either. I'll look closer at the
machine to see if maybe the ftpd isn't aware of IPv6 or something
like that.

Thanks

> Cheers,
> Kevin

Curt-

--
September 11th, 2001
The proudest day for gun control and central
planning advocates in American history


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kde-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Monday 07 November 2005 22:34, Curt Howland wrote:
> On Monday 07 November 2005 16:21, Kevin Krammer was heard to say:
> > did you write
> > ftp://::192:168:1:20/
>
> Actually, what I wrote was ftp://corwin6/
>
> With /etc/hosts:
> ::192:168:1:20 corwin6
>
> But I also did try the addressing as you suggest. No difference.

Hmm.

> > Googling brought some URLs in this form
> > ftp://[::192:168:1:20]/
>
> Let me see... Nope. "could not connect to host ::192:168:1:20"

Yeah, sorry.
IPv& addresses are in hexadecimal notation, so this is a very different
host

I think a valid appreviation is
::192.168.1.20
some kind compatability mode

or
::C0A8:0114

Cheers,
Kevin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBDb8qonKMhG6pzZJIRAsPbAJ49f18JaCSyosPjoN3vM4 45mFBDIQCfWWWq
KiFOr3kSo/VICtxe0XoZrMM=
=zCGY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

* Kevin Krammer [2005 Nov 07 16:44 -0600]:
> On Monday 07 November 2005 22:34, Curt Howland wrote:
> > On Monday 07 November 2005 16:21, Kevin Krammer was heard to say:
> > > did you write
> > > ftp://::192:168:1:20/
> >
> > Actually, what I wrote was ftp://corwin6/
> >
> > With /etc/hosts:
> > ::192:168:1:20 corwin6
> >
> > But I also did try the addressing as you suggest. No difference.
>
> Hmm.
>
> > > Googling brought some URLs in this form
> > > ftp://[::192:168:1:20]/
> >
> > Let me see... Nope. "could not connect to host ::192:168:1:20"
>
> Yeah, sorry.
> IPv& addresses are in hexadecimal notation, so this is a very different
> host
>
> I think a valid appreviation is
> ::192.168.1.20
> some kind compatability mode
>
> or
> ::C0A8:0114

Well, ipv6calc shows me:

ipv6calc --ipv4_to_6to4addr 192.168.1.20
2002:c0a8:114::

Not that I understand IPV4 to IPV6 conversion or anything, but I'm not
sure if the 2002 at the head of the output is significant or the double
colons at the tail.

I wonder if IPV6 is going to actually happen. I read somewhere in the
past couple of days (might have been a Slashdot post :-/ ) that IPV6 is
"overkill" and some are proposing a reassignment of sorts for IPV4
addresses. Personally, I like the dotted quad notation of IPV4 over
the MAC address like format of IPV6 and I'm still getting used to
seeing adjaceant colons.

- Nate >>

--
Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB | Successfully Microsoft
Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @ | free since January 1998.
http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/ | "Debian, the choice of
My Kawasaki KZ-650 SR @ | a GNU generation!"
http://www.networksplus.net/n0nb/ | http://www.debian.org


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kde-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Monday 07 November 2005 21:01, Nate Bargmann was heard to say:
> Well, ipv6calc shows me:
>
> ipv6calc --ipv4_to_6to4addr 192.168.1.20
> 2002:c0a8:114::
>
> Not that I understand IPV4 to IPV6 conversion or anything, but I'm
> not sure if the 2002 at the head of the output is significant or
> the double colons at the tail.

I think it's a literal conversion, one bit pattern mapped onto the
other.

The "compatibility" address is "::192.168.1.20", but I have yet to
find out what the "compatibility" mode gains. There doesn't seem to
be any automatic address/header remapping going on, so maybe it
exists so that v4 to v6 gateways could be easily defined.

I settled on fef::192:168:1:20 because "fef:" is private address
space, just like 10.x.x.x and 192.168.x.x in v4, and until someone
tells me what compatibility mode is good for, might as well go
straight to it.

> I wonder if IPV6 is going to actually happen. I read somewhere in
> the past couple of days (might have been a Slashdot post :-/ ) that
> IPV6 is "overkill" and some are proposing a reassignment of sorts
> for IPV4 addresses.

IPv6 suffers from what is called "second system" syndrome. The first
system, designed by individuals to meet specific needs, works well.
The second system, designed by committee, may fix some of the
shortcomings of the first system, but it adds features and features
and features.

v6 starts out well. The simplification of headers, to a specific
length even with the huge addresses, is a very good thing. Had v6
stopped there, I would be entirely happy with it. But NoooOOOoooo!

> Personally, I like the dotted quad notation of
> IPV4 over the MAC address like format of IPV6 and I'm still getting
> used to seeing adjaceant colons.

The adjacent colons are shorthand for "all zeros, move along, nothing
to see here". Purely for human consumption, and it does make 128 bits
easier in human communications. But yeah, it's that committee thing.
More features.

IPv6 has a huge hurdle to overcome: installed base. NAT has been v4's
saving grace, allowing even the elephant of AOL to live behind a
small block of routable addresses. But a reassignment of v4 addresses
would be a "very good thing", and even that would be painful and I'm
sure it's being resisted.

What I want to see is easy NAT that converts from v4 to v6. I haven't
seen a router that will do that yet, but I'm sure if I can think of
it others have too. And who knows what is buried in the catacombs of
Cisco IOS?

> - Nate >>

Curt-




--
September 11th, 2001
The proudest day for gun control and central
planning advocates in American history


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kde-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Tuesday 08 November 2005 15:07, Curt Howland wrote:
> On Monday 07 November 2005 21:01, Nate Bargmann was heard to say:
> > Well, ipv6calc shows me:
> >
> > ipv6calc --ipv4_to_6to4addr 192.168.1.20
> > 2002:c0a8:114::
> >
> > Not that I understand IPV4 to IPV6 conversion or anything, but I'm
> > not sure if the 2002 at the head of the output is significant or
> > the double colons at the tail.
>
> I think it's a literal conversion, one bit pattern mapped onto the
> other.
>
> The "compatibility" address is "::192.168.1.20", but I have yet to
> find out what the "compatibility" mode gains. There doesn't seem to
> be any automatic address/header remapping going on, so maybe it
> exists so that v4 to v6 gateways could be easily defined.
>
> I settled on fef::192:168:1:20 because "fef:" is private address
> space, just like 10.x.x.x and 192.168.x.x in v4, and until someone
> tells me what compatibility mode is good for, might as well go
> straight to it.

I think compatability mode also works for non-private addresses, i.e. should
be routed outside the local network if possible.

> The adjacent colons are shorthand for "all zeros, move along, nothing
> to see here". Purely for human consumption, and it does make 128 bits
> easier in human communications. But yeah, it's that committee thing.
> More features.

I think there is a restriction that only one colon pair is allowed

Cheers,
Kevin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBDcO67nKMhG6pzZJIRAkifAJwIVJPN4hcHFuiJTaV+Og FqWnH0UQCdFosQ
pwZ2JBzjs+mF3V7+ErKnChI=
=te5u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----