RunUO and ipv6?

[pziemczyk]

Hello, i have one question.
RunUO is compatible with the protocol ipv6?

[Anti-Basic]

with the proper core changes, yes.

[pziemczyk]

Ok but how must change?

[Anti-Basic]

Getting RunUO 2.0 to work on Vista

[pziemczyk]

It's good but i using svn300 and i have other code..

[Tumeski]

Explain why you want to use IPv6... Thanks...

[pziemczyk]

Because I have such a possibility, ipv6 is a newer protocol. My IRC and FTP server support this protocol ..

[Tumeski]

Yeah i totally know that its new protocol... But still its not needed yet. Do you know why they made IPv6? It doesnt make anything faster or anything. It just opens more IP pools thats all. Were have to change to IPv6 someday when were out of IP's on IPv4 but still its not supported as it is yet. All golbal networks go with IPv6 theres only some of lan's with IPv6 and its idotic...

All of my VPN connections go with IPv4... Everything... Theres no point in using IPv6 yet. End of story.

[Rabban]

Originally Posted by Tumeski

It doesnt make anything faster or anything. It just opens more IP pools thats all.

I'll have to disagree. Most things I learn generally vacate the brain quickly after I've "needed" them so I'm having trouble getting the facts straight, but I am certain there are benefits outside of just getting more IP addresses.

For example, I want to say that it's more supportive of flows or virtual circuits which would make performance better (assuming routers continue to start to support such things). There are also some unused fields in the IPv4 protocol which are removed and/or changed to something useful.

I will concede that using IPv6 on a predominately IPv4 networks could slow things down on the end hosts due to the encapsulation of IPv6 within an IPv4 datagram.

If I get unlazy, I'll go look at the protocol and try and remember more a more concrete reasoning, but in general I disagree with your flat labeling of IPv6 as useless at this time. If everyone got of their duff and used IPv6, things could be a lot better.

[David]

Also note where pziemczyk is posting from. IPv6 is becoming adopted much faster overseas than it is in the United States.

/edit: I just noticed that Tumeski is also overseas... hmm

[Jeff]

I have 2 things to say this thread.

RunUO 2.0 SVN Version already supports IP6.
The client doesnt support IP6 so whats the big rush?(Vista is not a server platform, and Windows 2008 Server is a POS at the moment)

[Anti-Basic]

Originally Posted by pziemczyk

It's good but i using svn300 and i have other code..

that "other code" already includes support for it apparently.

Originally Posted by Jeff

I have 2 things to say this thread.

RunUO 2.0 SVN Version already supports IP6.

[Tumeski]

I dont want to step on anyone's foot here or anything. I just personally don't see any reasons for IPv6 yet. It just makes things more complicated if people randomly use IPv4 or IPv6... As i stated before, the day will come when were out of addresses with IPv4 and i think that world should swap over to IPv6 oneday with a big bang. It should be made by restricting ISP's routers connection to only support IPv6 protocol connections. So everyone would be kind of forced in using IPv6. But still i think it takes many years for IPv6 to work well. For example, think about all the network printers that need to junked after the change to IPv6.... uuh....

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by Tumeski

I dont want to step on anyone's foot here or anything. I just personally don't see any reasons for IPv6 yet. It just makes things more complicated if people randomly use IPv4 or IPv6... As i stated before, the day will come when were out of addresses with IPv4 and i think that world should swap over to IPv6 oneday with a big bang. It should be made by restricting ISP's routers connection to only support IPv6 protocol connections. So everyone would be kind of forced in using IPv6. But still i think it takes many years for IPv6 to work well. For example, think about all the network printers that need to junked after the change to IPv6.... uuh....

Its nto that people want it, its because people have vista and/or server 2008 which makes ip6 native. its an unfortunate thing, but runuo has solved this issue, and to be quite honest i have absolutely no idea why this is even a topic, if you want ip6 in runuo, compile the latest version from the SVN and you will have it, otherwise stop complaining.

[Vorspire]

I'm pretty sure IPv6 will have backwards compatibility modes in software for such future upgrades, like XP and compatibility modes for programs that run on 95,98 etc...

[David]

Originally Posted by Tumeski

I dont want to step on anyone's foot here or anything. I just personally don't see any reasons for IPv6 yet. It just makes things more complicated if people randomly use IPv4 or IPv6... As i stated before, the day will come when were out of addresses with IPv4 and i think that world should swap over to IPv6 oneday with a big bang. It should be made by restricting ISP's routers connection to only support IPv6 protocol connections. So everyone would be kind of forced in using IPv6. But still i think it takes many years for IPv6 to work well. For example, think about all the network printers that need to junked after the change to IPv6.... uuh....

I do understand your point in regards to an IPv6 global cut over but that is simply not practical on many levels. It is hard enough to do a cut over with in a limited organization, can you imagine the things that would go wrong with any sort of global cut over? What about companies which do not have a (competent) IT staff? I recently attended a conference on disaster preparedness, and their reports showed that of business which are using email, if they are cut off from email for one week over 40% never recover and close with in a year. The global economy simply cannot afford the type of implementation you propose.

[Tumeski]

Originally Posted by David

I do understand your point in regards to an IPv6 global cut over but that is simply not practical on many levels. It is hard enough to do a cut over with in a limited organization, can you imagine the things that would go wrong with any sort of global cut over? What about companies which do not have a (competent) IT staff? I recently attended a conference on disaster preparedness, and their reports showed that of business which are using email, if they are cut off from email for one week over 40% never recover and close with in a year. The global economy simply cannot afford the type of implementation you propose.

Thats 100% correct. I run my own IT company here at Pieksämäki, Finland. Company is called ATK-Pro. But as we know from previous happens in our history the change to IPv6 will come in a rush. Ultimately i see that the change will be fast and those that cant handle it.... well they need me here

[Radwen]

What will be interesting is not how companies will implement IPv6, but how ISP's will get home users to apply a patch to get their non IPv6 native OS's IPv6 compliant.

[Tumeski]

Originally Posted by Radwen

What will be interesting is not how companies will implement IPv6, but how ISP's will get home users to apply a patch to get their non IPv6 native OS's IPv6 compliant.

Ding ding 100 points! Basically every end-user computer needs to be patched. But whats more complicated is fixing those over 200+ pc network routers and writing all the ip's down again and doing reports about everything DUGH! ill be working myself to death that day

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Jeff

Stuff...

(Vista is not a server platform, and Windows 2008 Server is a POS at the moment)

2008 is rock solid.

[Ryan]

If the client ever supports IPV6 we will ensure the server does.

Thanks,
Ryan