Do we need more ipv6 servers?

General talk about EFnet

Moderators: Website/Forum Admins, EFnet/General Moderators

Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 4:54 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

Postby Hardy » Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:33 pm

Silence wrote:Hardy,

I too want to see an ipv6 server in north-america.
However, since the thread was "do we _need_ another ipv6 server?" I just considered the basic needs... and I think we can agree that we dont _need_ it, although we may want it. ;)

I know.. im just being a smartass ;)
I belive we need a North american one soon to continue beeing called a network that provides ipv6 support for their users :)

I was messaged by a undernet users here the other day, and he messaged me to say how cool it was that we provided ipv6 for the network, and how he was hoping undernet would catch up on technology aswell. And i agree.

IRC is a free service for its users, and what better place then that can you get ipv6 known and used on a daily bases. We are helping to push the evolution on the new internet protocol :)
-- Hardy
Administrator: irc.underworld.no
Services Administrator
http://www.efnet.org admin/staff
Noam
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 9:16 am

Postby Noam » Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:51 pm

Hardy wrote: And when it comes to he.net hosting a ipv6 server, that was asked some time back and they didnt want to do it. Not sure why but i last i checked they dont "allow" their own ipv6 tunnel users to use it for irc either.
Hmm, this could be the perfect solution then. If they had a v6 IRC server they could allow access just to that server, and any irc-related abuse could be dealt with by their staff.
I'm not telling HE what to do, but isn't this the perfect solution? this way the rants about not being able to use IRC would be stopped, and the abuse could be dealt with however they want to, as it is their tunnel.
Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 4:54 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

Postby Hardy » Wed Jun 09, 2004 8:23 am

Noam wrote:
Hardy wrote: And when it comes to he.net hosting a ipv6 server, that was asked some time back and they didnt want to do it. Not sure why but i last i checked they dont "allow" their own ipv6 tunnel users to use it for irc either.
Hmm, this could be the perfect solution then. If they had a v6 IRC server they could allow access just to that server, and any irc-related abuse could be dealt with by their staff.
I'm not telling HE what to do, but isn't this the perfect solution? this way the rants about not being able to use IRC would be stopped, and the abuse could be dealt with however they want to, as it is their tunnel.
Yupp, i agree. I`ll mention it to their admins when i see them online, but dont hold your breath, i doubt it will happend really ;)
-- Hardy
Administrator: irc.underworld.no
Services Administrator
http://www.efnet.org admin/staff
Tibar
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 12:14 am
Location: Brooklyn,NY // London, UK

ipv6 server soon ?

Postby Tibar » Thu Jun 10, 2004 4:03 am

Gatel/Aixit will be putting in an application to link an ipv6 server, in the very near future. We know that it is another European server but we have good routes to the united states and welcome anyone and everyone (to all of our services!)

-tibar
Noam
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 9:16 am

Postby Noam » Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:52 am

good to hear :)
the more the merrier
Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 4:54 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway
Contact:

Postby Hardy » Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:18 am

Tibar wrote:Gatel/Aixit will be putting in an application to link an ipv6 server, in the very near future. We know that it is another European server but we have good routes to the united states and welcome anyone and everyone (to all of our services!)

-tibar
Sounds good. I think its a good idea to provide ipv6 service also on existing servers, however i dont like the idea of linking in a 2. server with it when you can run dualstack. The code has proven itself stable enough for that.
Noam wrote:good to hear :)
the more the merrier
Both yes and no, by restricting the ammouth of ipv6 servers so early in the process its easier to reduce the potensial abuse from ipv6 users. If all 40(?) client servers on efnet would support ipv6 i think we would have a problem handling cloning and abuse from the clients. But a few servers spread all over the map is good tho, from native providers. Then if you are banned you ARE banned :)
-- Hardy
Administrator: irc.underworld.no
Services Administrator
http://www.efnet.org admin/staff
leeh
ircd-ratbox coder
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 5:43 pm
Location: UK

Postby leeh » Thu Jun 10, 2004 3:15 pm

Hardy wrote: Sounds good. I think its a good idea to provide ipv6 service also on existing servers, however i dont like the idea of linking in a 2. server with it when you can run dualstack. The code has proven itself stable enough for that.
I think whether or not you have a second server will have a big effect on how much DoS you get. If you run an open ipv6 server which has an open ipv4 ip on it (homelien is limited routes), youre gunna get packeted to hell and back for the users on your server, because the users cant be packeted directly, so theyll take out the server instead.

That means youre gunna get all the packets for the kiddies using your server, which isnt a nice thing..
User avatar
HM2K
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 5:34 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Postby HM2K » Mon Jun 14, 2004 11:41 pm

Noam wrote:in regards to one in US, maybe HE.net can support one? as they have IPv6 set up and an EFNet server
heh, i said that a while back... he.net tunneler won't let you use their tunneler for irc or something, so I doubt they are going to run an ircd for it... I am not 100% though...
leeh wrote:That means youre gunna get all the packets for the kiddies using your server, which isnt a nice thing..
I also said this, and I totally agree, this brings me back to my point that most people I see using ipv6 have something to hide... usually their ipv4 :p

And if people are going to do that, then why not flatten the server list, or remove the server name on whois etc... it sounds mighty dumb and mighty stupid... Its just gonna end up like dal net.

in my opinion ipv6 just asks for trouble, however you look at it, there is no good reason for it atm, until it becomes more of a standard, and NOT just used by a bunch of geeks :p
dayzed
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 2:09 am
Location: jersey
Contact:

Postby dayzed » Thu Jun 24, 2004 2:12 am

i'm gonna say what's been said atleast a handful of times already;

we may not *need* a north american ipv6 server, but it would certainly ease getting and keeping an ipv6 connection. as it is, i barely stay connected to homelien, and i can't get connected to either of the .nl servers.

in addition, qeast did rock the block. it was solid and fast. (why'd they delink anyway?)

just my spin on it.
User avatar
Jon
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 5:33 am
Location: NB.CA

Postby Jon » Thu Jun 24, 2004 11:56 pm

Conflict of interest
http://www.efnet.info/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25

their ipv6 was put on hold to deal with the abuse
Silence
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 11:37 am
Location: Sweden

Postby Silence » Thu Jul 22, 2004 5:19 am

You should have no problem connecting to efnet.ipv6.xs4all.nl since it's open I-lined (*@*). What error do you get?
admin *.xs4all.nl
Rage
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 9:52 pm
Location: a payphone
Contact:

Re: maybe

Postby Rage » Wed Mar 23, 2005 12:03 am

Manta wrote:i am always been for having more ipv6 efnet servers. but
i have to admit i am not seening much of a point as it is now.

as i have always said its not the admins problem that there is alot of abuse.
but there should be better cooperation and communication between the ipv6 tunnel brokers and the efnet admins. this is to have a possibility to kill the tunnels when there is abuse. and, there are ALOT of different ipv6 tunnel brokers, i know. but my opinion is that there should be made a list, so that the efnet admins should be able to know WHO the admin of the tunnel broker that has given that ipv6 adresses to the abuser.

only way to still allow ipv6 on efnet, and fight the abuse. the other choice is to just shut down the ipv6 efnet servers :(
there is a list. It's called whois.

server-1:/etc/bind# whois 3ffe:host-hidden::1

% RIPEdb(3.0.0b2) with ISI RPSL extensions

inet6num: 3FFE:80EE::/32
netname: XS26-USER-DELEGATIONS
descr: XS26 USERS
query whois.xs26.net for more specific records

I won't bore you with the other 3 pages, but there was no less than 5 email addresses on that whois, including an abuse@ , not to mention web addresses, and I think physical addresses.... Same system as with IPv4
dexter
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 12:11 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: maybe

Postby dexter » Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:25 am

Rage wrote:
Manta wrote:i am always been for having more ipv6 efnet servers. but
i have to admit i am not seening much of a point as it is now.

as i have always said its not the admins problem that there is alot of abuse.
but there should be better cooperation and communication between the ipv6 tunnel brokers and the efnet admins. this is to have a possibility to kill the tunnels when there is abuse. and, there are ALOT of different ipv6 tunnel brokers, i know. but my opinion is that there should be made a list, so that the efnet admins should be able to know WHO the admin of the tunnel broker that has given that ipv6 adresses to the abuser.

only way to still allow ipv6 on efnet, and fight the abuse. the other choice is to just shut down the ipv6 efnet servers :(
there is a list. It's called whois.

server-1:/etc/bind# whois 3ffe:host-hidden::1

% RIPEdb(3.0.0b2) with ISI RPSL extensions

inet6num: 3FFE:80EE::/32
netname: XS26-USER-DELEGATIONS
descr: XS26 USERS
query whois.xs26.net for more specific records

I won't bore you with the other 3 pages, but there was no less than 5 email addresses on that whois, including an abuse@ , not to mention web addresses, and I think physical addresses.... Same system as with IPv4
He's talking about finding out who the tunnel broker assigned the tunnels to. The remote users wouldn't have the IP space delegated to them, so they wouldn't appear in the whois information for the ip block.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests