Ipv6 - Revision history

KI5QKX: mw push

2026-04-30T18:52:57Z

mw push

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:52, 30 April 2026
Line 10:		Line 10:

	[http://sourceforge.net/projects/hamv6/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/hamv6/]		[http://sourceforge.net/projects/hamv6/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/hamv6/]


	----		----
Line 22:		Line 21:

	- Use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_local_address ULA] space. This has the disadvantage of rendering the IPv6 AMPRnet non-globally routeable. Then again, not much of the IPv4 AMPRnet is truly globally routed, with the gateway for the greater Internet being a single machine somewhere at UCSD.		- Use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_local_address ULA] space. This has the disadvantage of rendering the IPv6 AMPRnet non-globally routeable. Then again, not much of the IPv4 AMPRnet is truly globally routed, with the gateway for the greater Internet being a single machine somewhere at UCSD.



	----		----
Line 32:		Line 29:

	[https://github.com/darconeous/ham-addr/ https://github.com/darconeous/ham-addr/]		[https://github.com/darconeous/ham-addr/ https://github.com/darconeous/ham-addr/]


	----		----
Line 42:		Line 38:

	[http://www.qsl.net/k/kb9mwr//wapr/tcpip/DCC2016-IPV6.pdf Abstract]		[http://www.qsl.net/k/kb9mwr//wapr/tcpip/DCC2016-IPV6.pdf Abstract]


	----		----
Line 48:		Line 43:

	''Hi All,		''Hi All,


	AMPRNET consists of IPv4 addresses 44.0.0.0/9 and 44.128.0.0/10. Tunnels used to support AMPRNET use IPv4 hosts as destinations for the tunnels, creating a "mesh-like" network.		AMPRNET consists of IPv4 addresses 44.0.0.0/9 and 44.128.0.0/10. Tunnels used to support AMPRNET use IPv4 hosts as destinations for the tunnels, creating a "mesh-like" network.


	Bent OZ6BL and I have been experimenting with using an IPv6 host to carry AMPRNET traffic. The reason you might want to do this is that IPv6 addresses, particularly static addresses, can be much more readily available than with IPv4. Also, it's an interesting thing to try! We have working tunneled 44.0.0.0/9 and 44.128.0.0/10 connectivity between three different IPv6 hosts. However, there are some issues that arise, mainly due to the way in which AMPRNET functions.		Bent OZ6BL and I have been experimenting with using an IPv6 host to carry AMPRNET traffic. The reason you might want to do this is that IPv6 addresses, particularly static addresses, can be much more readily available than with IPv4. Also, it's an interesting thing to try! We have working tunneled 44.0.0.0/9 and 44.128.0.0/10 connectivity between three different IPv6 hosts. However, there are some issues that arise, mainly due to the way in which AMPRNET functions.
Line 65:		Line 58:

	It's very similar to how conventional AMPRNET is set up. However, the first issue is that with ip4in6 you cant (unlike ip4in4) leave the "remote" address empty, and then use routing commands to set the destination for different AMPRNET hosts (you'd be trying to add an IPv4 route to an IPv6 gateway destination). So there's a scalability problem - you'd need to set up a different tunnel device for each subnet you communicate with!		It's very similar to how conventional AMPRNET is set up. However, the first issue is that with ip4in6 you cant (unlike ip4in4) leave the "remote" address empty, and then use routing commands to set the destination for different AMPRNET hosts (you'd be trying to add an IPv4 route to an IPv6 gateway destination). So there's a scalability problem - you'd need to set up a different tunnel device for each subnet you communicate with!


	The second issue is interoperability - if Alf, Bob and Charlie each only have IPv6 hosted AMPRNET, and Doug, Ed and Fred have only IPv4, then A, B, and C can communicate with themselves, as can D,E,F, but the two groups cannot interconnect from tunneled addresses. Of course, A,B and C could host IP4 tunnels as well, but that would somewhat defeat the purpose! Alternatively, one or more gateways (G) could host both IP4 and IP6 based tunnels, and route between the different type of network, a bit like this:		The second issue is interoperability - if Alf, Bob and Charlie each only have IPv6 hosted AMPRNET, and Doug, Ed and Fred have only IPv4, then A, B, and C can communicate with themselves, as can D,E,F, but the two groups cannot interconnect from tunneled addresses. Of course, A,B and C could host IP4 tunnels as well, but that would somewhat defeat the purpose! Alternatively, one or more gateways (G) could host both IP4 and IP6 based tunnels, and route between the different type of network, a bit like this:


	A,B,C <----> G <----> D,E,F		A,B,C <----> G <----> D,E,F


	Could/should amprgw be configured to do this? Or maybe some hosts elsewhere do that function? But it adds complexity to the overall routing setup (and starts to become a more centralised network).		Could/should amprgw be configured to do this? Or maybe some hosts elsewhere do that function? But it adds complexity to the overall routing setup (and starts to become a more centralised network).


	The final issue is dissemination of the information - can the Portal be modified to support IPv6 hosts, or do we need another mechanism? Can encap.txt be used still? Would facilities such as ampr-ripd and ripd44 need modifications?		The final issue is dissemination of the information - can the Portal be modified to support IPv6 hosts, or do we need another mechanism? Can encap.txt be used still? Would facilities such as ampr-ripd and ripd44 need modifications?


	So there's plenty to think about....		So there's plenty to think about....
Line 90:		Line 78:

	We just need a means of advertising the ham netblocks (possibly announced by RIP) and automatically configuring filtering (an iptables whitelist). A DNS to register the ham host in, etc. An ideal situation would be a totally self-service DNS that uses LoTW (Logbook of the World) P12 certificates to authenticate hams, where they could then enter the IPv6 address(es) from their residential connection that are for ham use.		We just need a means of advertising the ham netblocks (possibly announced by RIP) and automatically configuring filtering (an iptables whitelist). A DNS to register the ham host in, etc. An ideal situation would be a totally self-service DNS that uses LoTW (Logbook of the World) P12 certificates to authenticate hams, where they could then enter the IPv6 address(es) from their residential connection that are for ham use.


	[[Category:Reference]]		[[Category:Reference]]

KI5QKX: mw push

2026-02-28T23:20:42Z

mw push

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:20, 28 February 2026
Line 7:		Line 7:
	In 2012 a few members from the [http://www.wm7rc.org/ Mesa Amateur Radio Club] of Arizona took this to code and announced:		In 2012 a few members from the [http://www.wm7rc.org/ Mesa Amateur Radio Club] of Arizona took this to code and announced:

	''Club Members Jacques N1ZZH and Vinnie N1LQJ have developed a method of embedding a 2x5 (7 Character) callsign plus up to 185 nodes, plus 1 universal bit and three reserved bits in the 2nd octet, and a 16 bit amateur radio identifer at bit 24 of an IPv6 /64 Subnet address. Tools for encoding and decoding amateur radio callsigns, up to 2x4 & 185 nodes, from IPv6 /64 subnets with Universal bit support and Amateur Radio Flag at the 24bit. Experimental RFC to IETF is being submitted for this proposed amateur standard.''		''Club Members Jacques N1ZZH and Vinnie N1LQJ have developed a method of embedding a 2x5 (7 Character) callsign plus up to 185 nodes, plus 1 universal bit and three reserved bits in the 2nd octet, and a 16 bit amateur radio identifer at bit 24 of an IPv6 /64 Subnet address. Tools for encoding and decoding amateur radio callsigns, up to 2x4 and 185 nodes, from IPv6 /64 subnets with Universal bit support and Amateur Radio Flag at the 24bit. Experimental RFC to IETF is being submitted for this proposed amateur standard.''

	[http://sourceforge.net/projects/hamv6/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/hamv6/]		[http://sourceforge.net/projects/hamv6/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/hamv6/]
Line 45:		Line 45:

	----		----
	In October 2017, Steve, VK5ASF posted to the ~~44net~~ mailing list a message titled Using IPv6 hosts for AMPRNET, which gave some details of some experiments he was performing to tunnel IPv4 inside IPv6:		In October 2017, Steve, VK5ASF posted to the 44Net mailing list a message titled Using IPv6 hosts for AMPRNET, which gave some details of some experiments he was performing to tunnel IPv4 inside IPv6:

	''Hi All,		''Hi All,
Line 76:		Line 76:


	The final issue is dissemination of the information - can the ~~portal~~ be modified to support IPv6 hosts, or do we need another mechanism? Can encap.txt be used still? Would facilities such as ampr-ripd and ripd44 need modifications?		The final issue is dissemination of the information - can the Portal be modified to support IPv6 hosts, or do we need another mechanism? Can encap.txt be used still? Would facilities such as ampr-ripd and ripd44 need modifications?

KI5QKX at 20:28, 12 December 2024

2024-12-12T20:28:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:28, 12 December 2024
Line 90:		Line 90:

	We just need a means of advertising the ham netblocks (possibly announced by RIP) and automatically configuring filtering (an iptables whitelist). A DNS to register the ham host in, etc. An ideal situation would be a totally self-service DNS that uses LoTW (Logbook of the World) P12 certificates to authenticate hams, where they could then enter the IPv6 address(es) from their residential connection that are for ham use.		We just need a means of advertising the ham netblocks (possibly announced by RIP) and automatically configuring filtering (an iptables whitelist). A DNS to register the ham host in, etc. An ideal situation would be a totally self-service DNS that uses LoTW (Logbook of the World) P12 certificates to authenticate hams, where they could then enter the IPv6 address(es) from their residential connection that are for ham use.


			[[Category:Reference]]

G1fef at 17:52, 29 March 2022

2022-03-29T17:52:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:52, 29 March 2022
Line 50:		Line 50:


	AMPRNET consists of IPv4 addresses 44.x.x.x. Tunnels used to support AMPRNET use IPv4 hosts as destinations for the tunnels, creating a "mesh-like" network.		AMPRNET consists of IPv4 addresses 44.0.0.0/9 and 44.128.0.0/10. Tunnels used to support AMPRNET use IPv4 hosts as destinations for the tunnels, creating a "mesh-like" network.


	Bent OZ6BL and I have been experimenting with using an IPv6 host to carry AMPRNET traffic. The reason you might want to do this is that IPv6 addresses, particularly static addresses, can be much more readily available than with IPv4. Also, it's an interesting thing to try! We have working tunneled 44.x.x.x connectivity between three different IPv6 hosts. However, there are some issues that arise, mainly due to the way in which AMPRNET functions.		Bent OZ6BL and I have been experimenting with using an IPv6 host to carry AMPRNET traffic. The reason you might want to do this is that IPv6 addresses, particularly static addresses, can be much more readily available than with IPv4. Also, it's an interesting thing to try! We have working tunneled 44.0.0.0/9 and 44.128.0.0/10 connectivity between three different IPv6 hosts. However, there are some issues that arise, mainly due to the way in which AMPRNET functions.

	<pre>		<pre>

Kb9mwr at 16:40, 13 May 2019

2019-05-13T16:40:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:40, 13 May 2019
Line 89:		Line 89:
	At this time we have come to the conclusion that there won't be a amprnet conversion to IPv6. A new network will evolve. It seems very unlikely hams will need their own allocation as the smallest ipv6 prefix assigned to a residential connection is a /64 subnet yeilding 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 hosts.		At this time we have come to the conclusion that there won't be a amprnet conversion to IPv6. A new network will evolve. It seems very unlikely hams will need their own allocation as the smallest ipv6 prefix assigned to a residential connection is a /64 subnet yeilding 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 hosts.

	We just need a means of advertising the ham netblocks (possibly announced by RIP) and automatically configuring filtering (a whitelist). A DNS to register the ham host in, etc. An ideal situation would be a totally self-service DNS that uses LoTW (Logbook of the World) P12 certificates to authenticate hams, where they could then enter the IPv6 address(es) from their residential connection that are for ham use.		We just need a means of advertising the ham netblocks (possibly announced by RIP) and automatically configuring filtering (an iptables whitelist). A DNS to register the ham host in, etc. An ideal situation would be a totally self-service DNS that uses LoTW (Logbook of the World) P12 certificates to authenticate hams, where they could then enter the IPv6 address(es) from their residential connection that are for ham use.

Kb9mwr at 16:39, 13 May 2019

2019-05-13T16:39:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:39, 13 May 2019
Line 85:		Line 85:

	----		----
			'''Conclusion'''

	At this time we have come to the conclusion that there won't be a amprnet conversion to IPv6. A new network will evolve. It seems very unlikely hams will need their own allocation as the smallest ipv6 prefix assigned to a residential connection is a /64 subnet yeilding 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 hosts.		At this time we have come to the conclusion that there won't be a amprnet conversion to IPv6. A new network will evolve. It seems very unlikely hams will need their own allocation as the smallest ipv6 prefix assigned to a residential connection is a /64 subnet yeilding 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 hosts.

	We just need a means of advertising the ham netblocks (possibly announced by RIP) and automatically configuring filtering (a whitelist). A DNS to register the ham host in, etc. An ideal situation would be a totally self-service DNS that uses LoTW (Logbook of the World) P12 certificates to authenticate hams, where they could then enter the IPv6 address(es) from their residential connection that are for ham use.		We just need a means of advertising the ham netblocks (possibly announced by RIP) and automatically configuring filtering (a whitelist). A DNS to register the ham host in, etc. An ideal situation would be a totally self-service DNS that uses LoTW (Logbook of the World) P12 certificates to authenticate hams, where they could then enter the IPv6 address(es) from their residential connection that are for ham use.

Kb9mwr at 16:38, 13 May 2019

2019-05-13T16:38:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:38, 13 May 2019
Line 85:		Line 85:

	----		----
	At this time we have come to the conclusion that there won't be a amprnet conversion to IPv6. A new network will evolve. It seems very unlikely hams will need their own allocation as the smallest ipv6 prefix assigned to a ~~residental~~ connection is a /64 subnet yeilding 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 hosts.		At this time we have come to the conclusion that there won't be a amprnet conversion to IPv6. A new network will evolve. It seems very unlikely hams will need their own allocation as the smallest ipv6 prefix assigned to a residential connection is a /64 subnet yeilding 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 hosts.

	We just need a means of advertising the ham netblocks and automatically configuring filtering. A DNS to register the ham host in, etc		We just need a means of advertising the ham netblocks (possibly announced by RIP) and automatically configuring filtering (a whitelist). A DNS to register the ham host in, etc. An ideal situation would be a totally self-service DNS that uses LoTW (Logbook of the World) P12 certificates to authenticate hams, where they could then enter the IPv6 address(es) from their residential connection that are for ham use.

Kb9mwr at 03:45, 21 October 2017

2017-10-21T03:45:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:45, 21 October 2017
Line 83:		Line 83:
	Steve, VK5ASF		Steve, VK5ASF
	''		''

			----
			At this time we have come to the conclusion that there won't be a amprnet conversion to IPv6. A new network will evolve. It seems very unlikely hams will need their own allocation as the smallest ipv6 prefix assigned to a residental connection is a /64 subnet yeilding 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 hosts.

			We just need a means of advertising the ham netblocks and automatically configuring filtering. A DNS to register the ham host in, etc

Kb9mwr at 02:53, 8 October 2017

2017-10-08T02:53:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:53, 8 October 2017
Line 13:		Line 13:

	----		----
	Kevin, N8VNR contacted IANA in February 2011 hoping to get an allocation for the whole of Amateur Radio in the same vein as 44.0.0.0/8 and received this response:		Kevin, N8VNR contacted [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authority IANA] in February 2011 hoping to get an allocation for the whole of Amateur Radio in the same vein as 44.0.0.0/8 and received this response:

	''Currently, the only policy we have been given for the allocation of global unicast IPv6 address space is for allocation to the RIRs. We do not have a policy allowing allocation to organisations like AMPRNet. For this reason, we would strongly suggest contacting an RIR for an IPv6 allocation''		''Currently, the only policy we have been given for the allocation of global unicast IPv6 address space is for allocation to the RIRs. We do not have a policy allowing allocation to organisations like AMPRNet. For this reason, we would strongly suggest contacting an RIR for an IPv6 allocation''

Kb9mwr at 02:52, 8 October 2017

2017-10-08T02:52:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:52, 8 October 2017
Line 19:		Line 19:
	Kevin says perhaps someone with some more influence could contact them and make our case. He mentions other options include:		Kevin says perhaps someone with some more influence could contact them and make our case. He mentions other options include:

	- Get an AMPRnet allocation in each of the RIR regions. This has the disadvantage of fragmenting the routing table (one of the things IPv6 was designed to mitigate). There's also no guarantee all of the RIRs would grant such a request.		- Get an AMPRnet allocation in each of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Internet_registry RIR] regions. This has the disadvantage of fragmenting the routing table (one of the things IPv6 was designed to mitigate). There's also no guarantee all of the RIRs would grant such a request.

	- Use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_local_address ULA] space. This has the disadvantage of rendering the IPv6 AMPRnet non-globally routeable. Then again, not much of the IPv4 AMPRnet is truly globally routed, with the gateway for the greater Internet being a single machine somewhere at UCSD.		- Use [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_local_address ULA] space. This has the disadvantage of rendering the IPv6 AMPRnet non-globally routeable. Then again, not much of the IPv4 AMPRnet is truly globally routed, with the gateway for the greater Internet being a single machine somewhere at UCSD.