KDE and IPv6 - Debian

This is a discussion on KDE and IPv6 - Debian ; 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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: KDE and IPv6

  1. KDE and IPv6

    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".

    Is there a known issue with IPv6 and KDE protocols?

    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

  2. Re: KDE and IPv6

    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-----


  3. Re: KDE and IPv6

    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

  4. Re: KDE and IPv6

    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-----


  5. Re: KDE and IPv6

    * 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

  6. Re: KDE and IPv6

    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

  7. Re: KDE and IPv6

    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-----


+ Reply to Thread