[Wiltshire] Fwd: Re: IPV6

[David Fletcher]

On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 09:43 +0000, Simon Iremonger wrote:
> > The most imprtant thing he says is about compatibility addresses, this 
> > had to be the case or it will all fall over. I will add further to the 
> > early windows scare (MS cockup, they did know about IPV6) and remind you
> 
> I think this is an important oversight/confusion unfortuntaley.
> 
> 
> The "compatibility address" is just used so an IPv6-socket-application
>    can connect to IPv4 clients without also opening and IPv4-socket.
> 
> On-the-wire,  its' still IPv4 or IPv6 -- they do NOT normally
>    interconnect.
> If you run an IPv4 server it NEEDS to also have an IPv6 address if it is
>    to be reachable from IPv6-only clients.  "compatibilty address" does
>    not fix this ;-).  You can get translating load-balancers and stuff
>    but... that gets 'interesting' ;-).
> 

Yes I've got a 10.04 server with an IPv4 fixed address like so:-

iface eth0 inet static
  address   192.168.2.2
  netmask   255.255.255.0
  network   192 168.2.0
  broadcast 192.168.2.255
  gateway   192.168.2.1

reached from outside via NAT and port forwarding configured on my
router.

Will the IPv6 address simply be added to the above
in /etc/network/interfaces? Obviously the router will also need to be
worked on. I have the Cisco/Linksys WRT160NL which I think I can flash
with something like OpenWRT.

I'd like to gather information about what I will need to do, but I'm not
going to tamper with things until the ISP provides support. If Virgin
Media really do provide support in the "next few months" maybe they'll
be a relatively early adopter?

Dave