| 1 |
On 7/29/20 5:23 PM, james wrote: |
| 2 |
> Free static IPs? |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Sure. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Sign up with Hurricane Electric for an IPv6 in IPv4 tunnel and request |
| 7 |
that they route a /56 to you. It's free. #hazFun |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> Note:: here in the US, it may be easier and better, to just purchase |
| 10 |
> an assignment, that renders them yours. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Simply paying someone for IPs doesn't "render them yours" per say. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> I'd be shocked if you do not have to pay somebody residual fees, |
| 15 |
> just like DNS. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
It is highly dependent on what you consider to be "residual fees". |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Does the circuit to connect you / your equipment to the Internet count? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
What about the power to run said equipment? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Does infrastructure you already have and completely paying for mean that |
| 24 |
adding a new service (DNS) to it costs (more) money? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Yes, there is annual (however it works out) rental on the domain name. |
| 27 |
But you can easily host your own DNS if you have infrastructure to do so on. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
My VPS provider offers no-additional-charge DNS services. Does that |
| 30 |
mean that it's free? I am paying them a monthly fee for other things. |
| 31 |
How you slice things can be quite tricky. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> So sense there seems to be interest from several folks, |
| 34 |
> I'm all interested in how to do this, US centric. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I think the simplest and most expedient is to get a Hurricane Electric |
| 37 |
IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnel. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> Another quesiton. If you have (2) blocks of IP6 address, |
| 40 |
> can you use BGP4 (RFC 1771, 4271, 4632, 5678,5936 6198 etc ) and other |
| 41 |
> RFC based standards to manage routing and such multipath needs? |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Conceptually? Sure. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Minutia: I don't recall at the moment if the same version of the BGP |
| 46 |
protocol handles both IPv4 and IPv6. I think it does. But I need more |
| 47 |
caffeine and to check things to say for certain. Either way, I almost |
| 48 |
always see BGPv4 and BGPv6 neighbor sessions established independently. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
There is a fair bit more that needs to be done to support multi-path in |
| 51 |
addition to having a prefix. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
> Who enforces what carriers do with networking. Here |
| 54 |
> in the US, I'm pretty sure it's just up to the the |
| 55 |
> Carrier/ISP/bypass_Carrier/backhaul-transport company).... |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
Yep. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
There is what any individual carrier will do and then there's what the |
| 60 |
consensus of the Internet will do. You can often get carriers to do |
| 61 |
more things than the Internet in general will do. Sometimes for a fee. |
| 62 |
Sometimes for free. It is completely dependent on the carrier. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
> Conglomerates with IP resources, pretty much do what they want, and they |
| 65 |
> are killing the standards based networking. If I'm incorrect, please |
| 66 |
> educated me, as I have not kept up in this space, since selling my ISP |
| 67 |
> more than (2) decades ago. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
Please elaborate on what you think the industry / conglomerates are |
| 70 |
doing that is killing the standards based networking. |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
> The trump-china disputes are only accelerating open standards for |
| 73 |
> communications systems, including all things TCP/IP. |
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
Please elaborate. |
| 76 |
|
| 77 |
|
| 78 |
|
| 79 |
-- |
| 80 |
Grant. . . . |
| 81 |
unix || die |
Archives