IPv6 vs. IPv4 for embedded devices

On 2008-09-12, Neil Cherry <njc@cookie.uucp> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:36:54 -0500, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2008-09-12, Dirk Zabel <zabel@riccius-sohn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Unfortunately I cannot be sure that the devices are only running in such
>>> isolated networks. Would be tunneling (ipv4 over ipv6) solution?
>>
>> It could be, but NAT is probably much more common.
>
> I have limited experience with IPV6 but from what I've read there
> appears to be no NAT between IPV4 and V6.

That seems rather odd.  I would think it a very useful and not
too difficult (based on a somewhat superficial understanding of
IPv6).  I would think an internal IPv4 network that shows up as
a single IP address on an external IPv6 network would be quite
a common thing for many years to come.

> Many of the managed network service providers are going dual
> stack (IPV4 talks to IPV4, IPV6 to IPV6 and never the twain
> shall meet). The whole thing is quite confusing and I don't
> think it will be settled anytime too soon. 


-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow! Hold the MAYO & pass
                                  at               the COSMIC AWARENESS ...
                               visi.com            

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:36:49 -0500, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com>
wrote:

>On 2008-09-12, Neil Cherry <njc@cookie.uucp> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:36:54 -0500, Grant Edwards wrote:
>>> On 2008-09-12, Dirk Zabel <zabel@riccius-sohn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unfortunately I cannot be sure that the devices are only running in such
>>>> isolated networks. Would be tunneling (ipv4 over ipv6) solution?
>>>
>>> It could be, but NAT is probably much more common.
>>
>> I have limited experience with IPV6 but from what I've read there
>> appears to be no NAT between IPV4 and V6.
>
>That seems rather odd.  I would think it a very useful and not
>too difficult (based on a somewhat superficial understanding of
>IPv6).  I would think an internal IPv4 network that shows up as
>a single IP address on an external IPv6 network would be quite
>a common thing for many years to come.

I had thought that there was a provision so that the entire IPV4
address range had a slot within the IPV6 address range.

Maybe nobody uses it. ?

<snip>
-- 
ArarghMail809 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html

To reply by email, remove the extra stuff from the reply address.

On 2008-09-12, ArarghMail809NOSPAM@NOT.AT.Arargh.com <ArarghMail809NOSPAM@NOT.AT.Arargh.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:36:49 -0500, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 2008-09-12, Neil Cherry <njc@cookie.uucp> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:36:54 -0500, Grant Edwards wrote:
>>>> On 2008-09-12, Dirk Zabel <zabel@riccius-sohn.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately I cannot be sure that the devices are only running in such
>>>>> isolated networks. Would be tunneling (ipv4 over ipv6) solution?
>>>>
>>>> It could be, but NAT is probably much more common.
>>>
>>> I have limited experience with IPV6 but from what I've read there
>>> appears to be no NAT between IPV4 and V6.
>>
>>That seems rather odd.  I would think it a very useful and not
>>too difficult (based on a somewhat superficial understanding of
>>IPv6).  I would think an internal IPv4 network that shows up as
>>a single IP address on an external IPv6 network would be quite
>>a common thing for many years to come.
>
> I had thought that there was a provision so that the entire IPV4
> address range had a slot within the IPV6 address range.
>
> Maybe nobody uses it. ?

Dunno, but the concept of a single IPV4 address range is
somewhat nonsensical given the prevalence of NAT firewalls.

There are millions of sets of overlapping IPV4 addresses
ranges. Many of those have ever-shifting mappings into a single
address within a publically visible address range.  I don't see
any reason why that single publically visible address of a NAT
firewall has to be IPv4 just because the NAT'ed network behind
it is IPv4.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow! Are we wet yet?
                                  at               
                               visi.com            

In message <slrngcl0df.ipl.andrews@sdf.lonestar.org>, Andrew Smallshaw 
<andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> writes
>On 2008-09-12, Dirk Zabel <zabel@riccius-sohn.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I am just gathering informations on how to equip an existing device with
>> an ethernet interface in order to enable remote tcp/ip access. Most of
>> the available tcp/ip stacks as well as chips with built-in tcp/ip
>> functionality I found so far only support ipv4. My question is: isn't
>> this a dead end? Don't I have to expect the demand to upgrade to ipv6
>> quite soon? I know ipv6 puts a lot more requirements on the hardware,
>> but on the other side the growing number of internet-enabled devices is
>> one of the reasons why the larger address space of ipv6 is needed.
>> I would be glad to hear some opinions on this topic,
>
>IMHO widespread deployment of IPv6 always seems to be a couple of
>years away.  It does now, it was a couple of years ago, and indeed,
>it was even maybe ten years ago.

AFAIK MoD require it now.
-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On 2008-09-12, ArarghMail809NOSPAM@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote:
>
> I had thought that there was a provision so that the entire IPV4
> address range had a slot within the IPV6 address range.
>
> Maybe nobody uses it. ?

ISTR the same thing too.  From memory if the first 96 bits of the
IPv6 address are all zero it is taken to be an IPv4 address.  But
I'm thinking back around ten years that I heard that so don't hold
me to it.

-- 
Andrew Smallshaw
andrews@sdf.lonestar.org

On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:36:47 -0500, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2008-09-12, ArarghMail809NOSPAM@NOT.AT.Arargh.com <ArarghMail809NOSPAM@NOT.AT.Arargh.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:36:49 -0500, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2008-09-12, Neil Cherry <njc@cookie.uucp> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:36:54 -0500, Grant Edwards wrote:
>>>>> On 2008-09-12, Dirk Zabel <zabel@riccius-sohn.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately I cannot be sure that the devices are only running in such
>>>>>> isolated networks. Would be tunneling (ipv4 over ipv6) solution?
>>>>>
>>>>> It could be, but NAT is probably much more common.
>>>>
>>>> I have limited experience with IPV6 but from what I've read there
>>>> appears to be no NAT between IPV4 and V6.
>>>
>>>That seems rather odd.  I would think it a very useful and not
>>>too difficult (based on a somewhat superficial understanding of
>>>IPv6).  I would think an internal IPv4 network that shows up as
>>>a single IP address on an external IPv6 network would be quite
>>>a common thing for many years to come.
>>
>> I had thought that there was a provision so that the entire IPV4
>> address range had a slot within the IPV6 address range.
>>
>> Maybe nobody uses it. ?
>
> Dunno, but the concept of a single IPV4 address range is
> somewhat nonsensical given the prevalence of NAT firewalls.
>
> There are millions of sets of overlapping IPV4 addresses
> ranges. Many of those have ever-shifting mappings into a single
> address within a publically visible address range.  I don't see
> any reason why that single publically visible address of a NAT
> firewall has to be IPv4 just because the NAT'ed network behind
> it is IPv4.

Now I'll have to go and look it up but from memory I think the two
RFCs for IPV4 mapping into IPV6 been deprecated. My understanding of
the NAT problems are that they are protocol specific translations. So
a proxy would be needed for each protocol. I'll see if I can find my
notes and get answers. It won't be too soon as I start classes on
Thursday.

-- 
Linux Home Automation         Neil Cherry       ncherry@linuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/                         Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/                    My HA Blog
Author of:    	Linux Smart Homes For Dummies

Neil Cherry <njc@cookie.uucp> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:36:47 -0500, Grant Edwards wrote:
> > On 2008-09-12, ArarghMail809NOSPAM@NOT.AT.Arargh.com <ArarghMail809NOSPAM@NOT.AT.Arargh.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:36:49 -0500, Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 2008-09-12, Neil Cherry <njc@cookie.uucp> wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:36:54 -0500, Grant Edwards wrote:
> >>>>> On 2008-09-12, Dirk Zabel <zabel@riccius-sohn.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Unfortunately I cannot be sure that the devices are only running in such
> >>>>>> isolated networks. Would be tunneling (ipv4 over ipv6) solution?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It could be, but NAT is probably much more common.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have limited experience with IPV6 but from what I've read there
> >>>> appears to be no NAT between IPV4 and V6.
> >>>
> >>>That seems rather odd.  I would think it a very useful and not
> >>>too difficult (based on a somewhat superficial understanding of
> >>>IPv6).  I would think an internal IPv4 network that shows up as
> >>>a single IP address on an external IPv6 network would be quite
> >>>a common thing for many years to come.
> >>
> >> I had thought that there was a provision so that the entire IPV4
> >> address range had a slot within the IPV6 address range.
> >>
> >> Maybe nobody uses it. ?
> >
> > Dunno, but the concept of a single IPV4 address range is
> > somewhat nonsensical given the prevalence of NAT firewalls.
> >
> > There are millions of sets of overlapping IPV4 addresses
> > ranges. Many of those have ever-shifting mappings into a single
> > address within a publically visible address range.  I don't see
> > any reason why that single publically visible address of a NAT
> > firewall has to be IPv4 just because the NAT'ed network behind
> > it is IPv4.

> Now I'll have to go and look it up but from memory I think the two
> RFCs for IPV4 mapping into IPV6 been deprecated. My understanding of
> the NAT problems are that they are protocol specific translations. So
> a proxy would be needed for each protocol. I'll see if I can find my
> notes and get answers. It won't be too soon as I start classes on
> Thursday.

RFC4966

Hi Glenn, Dirk,

this week was released the uIPv6 stack, which works in Contiki, and
obtained the IPv6-ready logo (certification)

It was developed jointly by Cisco, Atmel and SICS.

The release comes with an implementation of 6lowpan RFC4944, and a port to
Atmel RAVEN board, which embeds an 8-bit AVR microcontroller and a low
power 802.15.4 chipset.

More info at:

http://www.sics.se/contiki/
http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2008/prod_101408e.html?CMP=AF17154&vs_f=News@Cisco:+News+Releases&vs_p=News@Cisco:+News+Releases&vs_k=1
http://www.atmel.com/dyn/Products/tools_card.asp?tool_id=4291
http://www.avrfreaks.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=500643#500643

Regards,
Julien



>Glenn M�ller-Holst schrieb:
>> Dirk Zabel wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I am just gathering informations on how to equip an existing device 
>>> with an ethernet interface in order to enable remote tcp/ip access. 
> >> [..]
>>>    Dirk
>> 
>> Hi Dirk
>> 
>> Contiki has an extremely rudimentary IPv4 and IPv6 implementation, that

>> is chosen at compile time. Contiki has been ported to many platforms:
>> 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contiki
>> 
>> /Glenn
>Hi Glenn,
>thank you for the link. I took a quick look into Contiki, and it seems 
>they are using the uIP stack from Adam Dunkel. I was aware of this 
>stack, but as far as I see it is ipv4 only.
>Has a nice porting list, reminds me of some experiences *very* long ag: 
>commodore pet, apple II,... :-)
>--
>   Dirk
>

jabeille wrote:
> Hi Glenn, Dirk,
> 
> this week was released the uIPv6 stack, which works in Contiki, and
> obtained the IPv6-ready logo (certification)
> 
> It was developed jointly by Cisco, Atmel and SICS.
> 
> The release comes with an implementation of 6lowpan RFC4944, and a port to
> Atmel RAVEN board, which embeds an 8-bit AVR microcontroller and a low
> power 802.15.4 chipset.
> 
> More info at:
> 
> http://www.sics.se/contiki/
> http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2008/prod_101408e.html?CMP=AF17154&vs_f=News@Cisco:+News+Releases&vs_p=News@Cisco:+News+Releases&vs_k=1
> http://www.atmel.com/dyn/Products/tools_card.asp?tool_id=4291
> http://www.avrfreaks.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=500643#500643
> 
> Regards,
> Julien
> 
> 
> 
>> Glenn M�ller-Holst schrieb:
>>> Dirk Zabel wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I am just gathering informations on how to equip an existing device 
>>>> with an ethernet interface in order to enable remote tcp/ip access. 
>>>> [..]
>>>>    Dirk
>>> Hi Dirk
>>>
>>> Contiki has an extremely rudimentary IPv4 and IPv6 implementation, that
> 
>>> is chosen at compile time. Contiki has been ported to many platforms:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contiki
>>>
>>> /Glenn
>> Hi Glenn,
>> thank you for the link. I took a quick look into Contiki, and it seems 
>> they are using the uIP stack from Adam Dunkel. I was aware of this 
>> stack, but as far as I see it is ipv4 only.
>> Has a nice porting list, reminds me of some experiences *very* long ag: 
>> commodore pet, apple II,... :-)
>> --
>>   Dirk
>>
> 
> 

Hi Julien

Thank you for the information.

Regards,

Glenn

Glenn M�ller-Holst wrote:
> jabeille wrote:
>> Hi Glenn, Dirk,
>>
>> this week was released the uIPv6 stack, which works in Contiki, and
>> obtained the IPv6-ready logo (certification)
>>
>> It was developed jointly by Cisco, Atmel and SICS.
>>
>> The release comes with an implementation of 6lowpan RFC4944, and a 
>> port to
>> Atmel RAVEN board, which embeds an 8-bit AVR microcontroller and a low
>> power 802.15.4 chipset.
>>
>> More info at:
>>
>> http://www.sics.se/contiki/
>> http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2008/prod_101408e.html?CMP=AF17154&vs_f=News@Cisco:+News+Releases&vs_p=News@Cisco:+News+Releases&vs_k=1 
>>
>> http://www.atmel.com/dyn/Products/tools_card.asp?tool_id=4291
>> http://www.avrfreaks.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=500643#500643 
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Julien

Hi!

Now it is possible to download:

Sourcecode for Contiki with IPv6 support, can now be downloaded:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/contiki/contiki-2.2.1.uipv6.zip?use_mirror=

( Main page: http://www.sics.se/contiki/ check this to find newer 
sourcecode )

Regards,

Glenn