| |
PA2AGA > TCPDIG 02.12.96 02:56l 210 Lines 6918 Bytes #-10803 (0) @ EU
BID : TCP_96_251B
Read: DG7DAH GUEST
Subj: TCP-Group Digest 96/251B
Path: DB0AAB<DB0FSG<DB0IGL<DB0KCP<DB0ULM<DB0LX<DB0RBS<DB0SEL<DB0WTS<DB0GOS<
DB0HAG<DB0ACH<DB0RWI<PI8JOP<PI8ZAA<PI8HWB<PI8VAD<PI8VNW
Sent: 961129/1957Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:48505 [Hoek v Holland] FBB5.15c
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : TCPDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA21655 ; Fri, 29 Nov 96 19:41:22 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.62/7.1) with SMTP
id AA00000343 ; Fri, 29 Nov 96 20:30:52 MET
Received: from pa2aga-1 by pa2aga with SMTP
id AA00000333 ; Fri, 29 Nov 96 20:29:03 MET
Received: from pa2aga-1 by pa2aga-1 (NET/Mac 2.3.62/7.5.5) with SMTP
id AA00008633 ; Fri, 29 Nov 96 20:29:01 MET
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 96 20:24:29 MET
Message-Id: <tcp_96_251B>
From: pa2aga
To: tcp_broadcast@pa2aga-1
Subject: TCP-Group Digest 96/251B
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
sacha@ee.gatech.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 18:54:14 +1100
From: Terry Dawson <terry@perf.no.itg.telstra.com.au>
Subject: IP v 6
Brian Kantor wrote:
> I propose that we set a goal of transitioning to IPv6 by Jan 1 2001.
> That's only 5 years away. Do you think we can do it?
Certainly those users and gateways running Linux should be able to
achieve it.
How well IPv6 runs over a 1200 bps half duplex radio environment in 2001
on the few remaining amateur bands above 50 MHz remains to be seen :)
Terry
-- ObSig --
Terry Dawson, VK2KTJ, terry@perf.no.itg.telecom.com.au, Sydney, NSW,
Australia
-- Linux: standard and fully integrated support for Amateur Radio
protocols --
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 13:30:07 +0000 (GMT)
From: Alan Cox <alan@cymru.net>
Subject: IP v 6
> I don't remember there being a IP over AX.25 draft ;-)
I sort of did one but never got around to sending it to rfced.
> The AX.25 remains the same, the IPv6 is the payload. All I think we
> really need to decide is the PID(s) to be used for IPv6, to make it
> easiler to make separate parsers for IPv6.
I'd favour using the same PID. All the AX.25 stacks I've looked at get
IP version checking right.
> I'm hoping to get around to making initial steps on adding IPv6 support
> to TNOS over the Christmas holidays.
We do need a standard of some format. To start with the minimum MTU allowed
in IPV6 is 576 bytes. Also we need an agreed multicast encoding and more
importantly link local address format. Without those we are going to have
accidents.
Alan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 07:44:54 -0500 (EST)
From: "Brian A. Lantz" <brian@lantz.com>
Subject: IP v 6
On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Alan Cox wrote:
> > I propose that we set a goal of transitioning to IPv6 by Jan 1 2001.
> > That's only 5 years away. Do you think we can do it?
Yes, in far less time, most probably.......
> The UK cable companies want to put 30 million addresses on the net by 1999
> so I guess we'll need to keep up. Anyone have an IPv6 over AX.25 draft
> yet ?
>
> Alan
I don't remember there being a IP over AX.25 draft ;-)
The AX.25 remains the same, the IPv6 is the payload. All I think we
really need to decide is the PID(s) to be used for IPv6, to make it
easiler to make separate parsers for IPv6.
I'm hoping to get around to making initial steps on adding IPv6 support
to TNOS over the Christmas holidays.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brian A. Lantz http://www.lantz.com brian@lantz.com
REAL PORTION of Microsoft Windows code:
while (memory_available) {
eat_major_portion_of_memory (no_real_reason);
if (feel_like_it)
make_user_THINK (this_is_an_OS);
gates_bank_balance++;
}
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 16:37:02 GMT
From: brian@nothing.UCSD.EDU (Brian Kantor)
Subject: IP v 6
>We do need a standard of some format. To start with the minimum MTU allowed
>in IPV6 is 576 bytes. Also we need an agreed multicast encoding and more
>importantly link local address format.
Well, this is the place to discuss and design and experiment.
I've applied for a new AX.25 PID for IPv6. I'll let you know what it is
as soon as it's assigned.
- Brian
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 17:51:16 +0000 (GMT)
From: Paul L Taylor <pltaylor@meto.gov.uk>
Subject: IP v 6
>
> I propose that we set a goal of transitioning to IPv6 by Jan 1 2001.
> That's only 5 years away. Do you think we can do it?
> - Brian
>
Following the thread of current discussions I think some of the current
Radio Amateurs will wait for some of the "movers and shakers" to do it for
them Brian :-)
I see no reason why we cannot achieve your goal, is there a task force
that the radio amateurs can model on the IETF to implement it or are you
discussing this elsewhere Brian. Or was that a prod to discuss the matter.
Some discussion has of course occured in small groups here in UK and
Europe, I have personally steered some meetings to be aware of the
consequences of the adoption of v6 in the near future.
An AX25 IPv6 Discussion document followed by a Draft Implementation
document in say a year after first issue would be a reasonable target at
this stage. Using this newsgroup as the contact vehicle would increase the
signal to noise ratio of the group and provide a valuable resource in the
archives.
Regards
Paul g1plt
[Alan, David, Geert, John, Peter, Rich and Rob wave the virtual hands up
please and agree to get IPv6 moving]
p.s. I'm not volunteering at this stage by the way!
Disclaimer: any opinions expressed are mine, not of my employers
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 10:37:57 -0600
From: "Steve Sampson" <ssampson@oklahoma.net>
Subject: IPv6
Just a quick glance at RFC-1883, and I see the address's are 128 bits
The complete IP header is 40 bytes (2 address blocks of 16 bytes each,
and 2 control blocks of 8 bytes total). This doesn't seem too wild,
considering that packet radio will most likely be based on Spread Spectrum
devices at 100 kbps or better. So the consideration is that, anything less
than 100 kbps is a below the IPv6 networking minimum. When you look at
the Extension Header, you just know those are going to be used a lot, and
these are probably another 40 bytes...
Seems like there is never a week that goes by, that someone wants to
have their Windows hooked up to a TNC. So the least common denominator
should probably be a high level language. One that is portable to all
platforms (Intel, Motorola, DEC). Maybe even Object Oriented :-) Well,
you know where I'm headed anyway, and it smells like coffee...
TAPR is actively involved in SS, and plans to offer a 900 MHz radio for
experimentation (guess that leaves out Colorado, New Mexico, portions of
Texas and Wyoming. Or is that old rule obsolete, as 900 MHZ phones
are probably there. 97.303(g) in my 1990 rule book, guess I need something
a little more recent).
Probably some of the really neat stuff will be 2 meter band hoppers that
use
2 MHz of bandwidth. Around here 144 - 146 is wide open, with 146 -148
being
beacons. (well actually repeaters that are never used which beacon all day
To be continued in digest: tcp_96_251C
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
