| Home | Forums | Reviews | Guides | Newsgroups | Register | Search |
 |
| Thread Tools |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Desk Rabbit <> wrote:
> DNA wrote: >> Desk Rabbit <> wrote: >>> DNA wrote: >>>> Running msconfig and looking at ipconfig /all I noticed that my ISP >>>> has allocated my connection with an IPv6 IP address. >>> I assume from that, that you are connecting via a direct connection >>> rather than a more secure router? >> >> No, on the contrary, for the machine I refer to I connect through an >> old Linksys BEF (wired) having allocated 192.168.1.100 as with all >> other machines, nomenclature notwithstanding. >> >>> Are you sure you are looking at your public IP address and not your >>> LAN address - the local ip of your modem? >> >> Having checked before I spout misinformation, the answer to that is, >> no, but I stand corrected if indeed I misinterpret what I am about >> to detail. Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600] >> (C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp. >> >> C:\D&S__s\HAL-9000>ipconfig /all >> >> Windows IP Configuration >> >> Host Name . . . . . . . . . . . . : Mellivora capensis >> Primary Dns Suffix . . . . . . . : >> Node Type . . . . . . . . . . . . : Hybrid >> IP Routing Enabled. . . . . . . . : Yes >> WINS Proxy Enabled. . . . . . . . : No >> >> Ethernet adapter Wireless Network Connection 2: >> >> Media State . . . . . . . . . . . : Media disconnected >> Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Intel(R) PRO/Wireless >> 3945ABG Network Connection >> Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 00-13-DF-6E-AC-ED >> >> Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection 6: >> >> Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : >> Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Intel(R) PRO/1000 PL >> Network Connection >> >> Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 00-15-D7-3E-70-5B >> Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No >> IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.100 >> Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0 >> ****** IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : >> fe80::219:d7fe:fe3d:705f%8 ****** >> Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.1.1 >> DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx >> xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx >> fec0:0:0:ffff::1%2 >> fec0:0:0:ffff::2%2 >> fec0:0:0:ffff::3%2 >> >> Tunnel adapter Teredo Tunneling Pseudo-Interface: >> >> Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : >> Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Teredo Tunneling >> Pseudo-Interface >> Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : FF-FF-FF-FF-FF-FF-FF-FF >> Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No >> IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : fe80::ffff:ffff:fffd%6 >> Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : >> NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . . . : Disabled >> >> Tunnel adapter Automatic Tunneling Pseudo-Interface: >> >> Connection-specific DNS Suffix . : >> Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Automatic Tunneling >> Pseudo-Interface >> >> Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : A0-D8-01-34 >> Dhcp Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : No >> IP Address. . . . . . . . . . . . : >> fe81::5ffe:192.168.1.100%3 Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . >> : DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : fec0:0:0:ffff::1%2 >> : >> fec0:0:0:ffff::2%2 : >> fec0:0:0:ffff::3%2 NetBIOS over Tcpip. >> . . . . . . . : Disabled C:\D&S__s\HAL-9000> >> >>> More information needed to answer your query. >> >> Enough? So, is the IP I've highlighted with ****** the actual IP or >> the MAC address of the modem or the router? > > That's the IP address of your LAN card where you have installed IPv6. > You have assigned IPv6 to your LAN connection, not your ISP/WAN > connection. Yes, I now realise that - of course! > MAC addresses are a different thing listed as "Physical Address" > above. <shakes head at self> >>>> Recently I applied Microsoft TCP/IP version 6 for the network >>>> adapter which I suppose accounts for the output. >>> Cause and effect. And one has to ask, why did you add IPv6? >> >> Because it's there  > No offence, but you obviously don't know what you are doing or why. I > recommend that you remove IPv6 as it is serving no purpose other than > to add a layer of complexity to your configuration that could cause > you problems. Just as well I didn't profess to know what I was referring to or "... know what I was doing, or why" I'll disable it under your advismeent - thanks. >> >>>> How long have IPv6 IP addresses been in use? >>> Years >> >> Roger that. >> >>>> Does that mean cracking of machines with IPv6 IP's will be harder >>>> if not impossible? >>> IPv6 (Very basically here) just allows more addresses, you still >>> have an IP address on the internet so you are still visible. >> >> Indeed I do, which is confirmed from grc's Shields Up. > > And I'll wager that public IP is an IPv4 one Indeed, you are correct - and from that I see my error. Appreciate your pointers! |
|
|
|
|||
|
|
| |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
| |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:41:58 +0100, DNA wrote: >why? <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz> wrote: >> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:43:21 +0000, Desk Rabbit wrote: >> >>> DNA wrote: >>>> Desk Rabbit <> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>> The chappy in the vid' seems to know his stuff, and states that >>>> 'autonomous' IPv6 addresses prefixed with fe80 cannot connect >>>> directly to the net, so one assumes they are similarly used to >>>> 192.168.1.xxx's (local). >>> >>> Not the same. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6 under >>> "special addresses" where it states that it is analogous to >>> 169.254.0.0./16 >>> >>> 169.254.0.0/16 - This is the "link local" block. It is allocated for >>> communication between hosts on a single link. Hosts obtain these >>> addresses by auto-configuration, such as when a DHCP server may >>> not be found. >> >> True. >> >>> >>> 192.168.0.0/16 - This block is set aside for use in private networks. >>> Its intended use is documented in [RFC1918]. Addresses within >>> this block should not appear on the public Internet. >> >> As well as a couple of others. >> >> Back to your 1st issue, if your ISP is really doing IPv6 then you >> should be able to disable IPv4 and connect to any of the many IPv6 >> resources. > >I was in error - I will though see what happens if I do disable IPv4 - I do >not know as I post if my ISP does or does not provide IPv6. All you have to do is ask them  >> It would be unlikely your ISP would issue you with an IPV6 addr, while >> your IPv4 is showing the usual router allocated 198.168. >> >> You also have DHCP Enabled - No. So none of those settings appear to >> be any ISP supplied gateway or DNS, of course since they are xxx.xxx >> it's hard to tell. > >How would ISP supplied DNS differ from current DNS conventions if IPv6 were Nothing you need to worry about unless you are writing network awareservices for routers / firewalls etc. You are of course What conventions? UDP/TCP, IPv4 v IPv6 address and DHCPv6? The essential services are all the same. >present and operative? Would ISP supplied DNS present itself using the same When you use terms like 'present' , it's more like you want to know how to wrap up the IPV6 info into a IPv4 UDP packet, which then uses the existing methods until it hits the tunnel endpoint and is decoded. >convention as IPv6 IP addresses? FIO: The current ISP supplied DNS provides >the same standard DNS convention as the IP supplied which /is/ actually As long as it's more likely dual stack systems then independent stacks, your confusion appears to be in the dual addressing you see. Vista and most likely other versions of Win are using dual v4/v6 stacks. This means making a compromise with the Teredo tunnelling and pushing IPv6 addressing via IPv4 formats. >IPv4. If you want to get into the 'conventions' there are lots of RFC's to read. <snip> Me |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:14:34 GMT, why? wrote: > >On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:43:21 +0000, Desk Rabbit wrote: > >>DNA wrote: >>> Desk Rabbit <> wrote: >>> >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> The chappy in the vid' seems to know his stuff, and states that 'autonomous' >>> IPv6 addresses prefixed with fe80 cannot connect directly to the net, so >>> one assumes they are similarly used to 192.168.1.xxx's (local). >> >>Not the same. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6 under "special >>addresses" where it states that it is analogous to 169.254.0.0./16 >> >>169.254.0.0/16 - This is the "link local" block. It is allocated for >> communication between hosts on a single link. Hosts obtain these >> addresses by auto-configuration, such as when a DHCP server may not >> be found. > >True. > >> >>192.168.0.0/16 - This block is set aside for use in private networks. >> Its intended use is documented in [RFC1918]. Addresses within this >> block should not appear on the public Internet. > >As well as a couple of others. > >Back to your 1st issue, if your ISP is really doing IPv6 then you should >be able to disable IPv4 and connect to any of the many IPv6 resources. Ok, so I clicked the wrong post on reply. Comments directed at OP Me |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Desk Rabbit <> wrote:
> DNA wrote: >> why? <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz> wrote: >>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:43:21 +0000, Desk Rabbit wrote: >>> >>>> DNA wrote: >>>>> Desk Rabbit <> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [snip] >>>>> >>>>> The chappy in the vid' seems to know his stuff, and states that >>>>> 'autonomous' IPv6 addresses prefixed with fe80 cannot connect >>>>> directly to the net, so one assumes they are similarly used to >>>>> 192.168.1.xxx's (local). >>>> Not the same. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6 under >>>> "special addresses" where it states that it is analogous to >>>> 169.254.0.0./16 >>>> >>>> 169.254.0.0/16 - This is the "link local" block. It is allocated >>>> for communication between hosts on a single link. Hosts obtain >>>> these addresses by auto-configuration, such as when a DHCP >>>> server may not be found. >>> True. >>> >>>> 192.168.0.0/16 - This block is set aside for use in private >>>> networks. Its intended use is documented in [RFC1918]. Addresses >>>> within this block should not appear on the public >>>> Internet. >>> As well as a couple of others. >>> >>> Back to your 1st issue, if your ISP is really doing IPv6 then you >>> should be able to disable IPv4 and connect to any of the many IPv6 >>> resources. >> >> I was in error - I will though see what happens if I do disable IPv4 > > Don't bother. The advice from why? is bad as he hasn't yet realised > you are using a router and looking at the LAN config. If you disable > IPv4 you will lose contact with your router and thus the Internet and > then be completely screwed. I did disable IPv4 and left IPv6 selected, just to see what would happen - other than, as you cited (losing in'et and router access) there was no noticeable adverse effect But yes, IPv6 is totally irrelevant to 'common' usage at this time - it is now uninstalled. |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
why? <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:41:58 +0100, DNA wrote: > >> why? <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz> wrote: >>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:43:21 +0000, Desk Rabbit wrote: >>> >>>> DNA wrote: >>>>> Desk Rabbit <> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [snip] >>>>> >>>>> The chappy in the vid' seems to know his stuff, and states that >>>>> 'autonomous' IPv6 addresses prefixed with fe80 cannot connect >>>>> directly to the net, so one assumes they are similarly used to >>>>> 192.168.1.xxx's (local). >>>> >>>> Not the same. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6 under >>>> "special addresses" where it states that it is analogous to >>>> 169.254.0.0./16 >>>> >>>> 169.254.0.0/16 - This is the "link local" block. It is allocated >>>> for communication between hosts on a single link. Hosts obtain >>>> these addresses by auto-configuration, such as when a DHCP >>>> server may not be found. >>> >>> True. >>> >>>> >>>> 192.168.0.0/16 - This block is set aside for use in private >>>> networks. Its intended use is documented in [RFC1918]. >>>> Addresses within this block should not appear on the public >>>> Internet. >>> >>> As well as a couple of others. >>> >>> Back to your 1st issue, if your ISP is really doing IPv6 then you >>> should be able to disable IPv4 and connect to any of the many IPv6 >>> resources. >> >> I was in error - I will though see what happens if I do disable IPv4 >> - I do not know as I post if my ISP does or does not provide IPv6. > > All you have to do is ask them > >>> It would be unlikely your ISP would issue you with an IPV6 addr, >>> while your IPv4 is showing the usual router allocated 198.168. >>> >>> You also have DHCP Enabled - No. So none of those settings appear to >>> be any ISP supplied gateway or DNS, of course since they are xxx.xxx >>> it's hard to tell. >> >> How would ISP supplied DNS differ from current DNS conventions if >> IPv6 were > > Nothing you need to worry about unless you are writing network> aware services for routers / firewalls etc. You are of course > > What conventions? UDP/TCP, IPv4 v IPv6 address and DHCPv6? > > The essential services are all the same. > >> present and operative? Would ISP supplied DNS present itself using >> the same > > When you use terms like 'present' , it's more like you want to know > how to wrap up the IPV6 info into a IPv4 UDP packet, which then uses > the existing methods until it hits the tunnel endpoint and is decoded. > >> convention as IPv6 IP addresses? FIO: The current ISP supplied DNS >> provides the same standard DNS convention as the IP supplied which >> /is/ actually > > As long as it's more likely dual stack systems then independent > stacks, your confusion appears to be in the dual addressing you see. > Vista and most likely other versions of Win are using dual v4/v6 > stacks. This means making a compromise with the Teredo tunnelling and > pushing IPv6 addressing via IPv4 formats. > >> IPv4. > > If you want to get into the 'conventions' there are lots of RFC's to > read. > > <snip> > > Me I've awarded *myself* a 'WHOOSH!!' for that which you've posted above, because it's well deserved IPv6 is now uninstalled. Thanks again for your time. |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
DNA wrote:
> Desk Rabbit <> wrote: >> DNA wrote: >>> why? <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz> wrote: >>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:43:21 +0000, Desk Rabbit wrote: >>>> >>>>> DNA wrote: >>>>>> Desk Rabbit <> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>> >>>>>> The chappy in the vid' seems to know his stuff, and states that >>>>>> 'autonomous' IPv6 addresses prefixed with fe80 cannot connect >>>>>> directly to the net, so one assumes they are similarly used to >>>>>> 192.168.1.xxx's (local). >>>>> Not the same. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6 under >>>>> "special addresses" where it states that it is analogous to >>>>> 169.254.0.0./16 >>>>> >>>>> 169.254.0.0/16 - This is the "link local" block. It is allocated >>>>> for communication between hosts on a single link. Hosts obtain >>>>> these addresses by auto-configuration, such as when a DHCP >>>>> server may not be found. >>>> True. >>>> >>>>> 192.168.0.0/16 - This block is set aside for use in private >>>>> networks. Its intended use is documented in [RFC1918]. Addresses >>>>> within this block should not appear on the public >>>>> Internet. >>>> As well as a couple of others. >>>> >>>> Back to your 1st issue, if your ISP is really doing IPv6 then you >>>> should be able to disable IPv4 and connect to any of the many IPv6 >>>> resources. >>> I was in error - I will though see what happens if I do disable IPv4 >> Don't bother. The advice from why? is bad as he hasn't yet realised >> you are using a router and looking at the LAN config. If you disable >> IPv4 you will lose contact with your router and thus the Internet and >> then be completely screwed. > > I did disable IPv4 and left IPv6 selected, just to see what would happen - > other than, as you cited (losing in'et and router access) there was no > noticeable adverse effect > Gosh, keep fiddling long enough you will eventually break your computer |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Ipv6 on a ipv4/ipv6 hostname | Jesse van den Kieboom | Ruby | 1 | 06-05-2005 12:57 PM |
| About new Cisco router ipv6 | curro | Cisco | 0 | 12-11-2003 05:30 PM |
| IPv6 source routing, how to, it doesn't work IMO | Juan Fco Rodriguez Hervella | Cisco | 2 | 10-15-2003 05:42 PM |
| ipv6 / 128bit crypto | chris | Cisco | 0 | 07-11-2003 02:23 AM |
| ipv6 - which source address to use? | wd | Cisco | 1 | 07-04-2003 11:12 AM |
