Trying to submit a FidoNews article (just a "Food for Thought"), but
am unable to establish a binkp connection (netmail) to either 2:2/2 or 2:203/0.
Trying to submit a FidoNews article (just a "Food for Thought"), but am unable to establish a binkp connection (netmail) to either 2:2/2 or 2:203/0.
If IPv4 is busy, use IPv6. It's never busy. Welcome to the 21st century.For me its right opposite, if ipv4 is timing out - I crash using POTS line with my V.Everything. Welcome 20th century. =))
Bj”rn Felten wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Trying to submit a FidoNews article (just a "Food for Thought"), but am unable to establish a binkp connection (netmail) to either 2:2/2 or 2:203/0.
If IPv4 is busy, use IPv6. It's never busy. Welcome to the 21st century.
I don't have IPv6, as my ISP doesn't offer it.Who uses IPv6 networks anyways, they're damn slow.
If IPv4 is busy, use IPv6. It's never busy. Welcome to the 21st
century.
Busy? It's a binkp connection attempt, not a phone call. Duh.
I don't have IPv6, as my ISP doesn't offer it.
Fix your shit.
Can you write your name using latin characters? Bj?rn - makes no
sense. Network guru, who can't keep his station running stable.
=== Start of Windows Clipboard ===
XLATCHARSET CP850 CP866 850_866.chs
=== End of Windows Clipboard ===
Adding this to your golded.cfg will the provlem.
I don't have IPv6, as my ISP doesn't offer it.
Who uses IPv6 networks anyways,
they're damn slow.
Trying to submit a FidoNews article (just a "Food for Thought"), but am unable to establish a binkp connection (netmail) to either 2:2/2 or 2:203/0.
Who uses IPv6 networks anyways,
Dan Clough -> All skrev 2025-05-28 17:51:
Trying to submit a FidoNews article (just a "Food for Thought"),
but am unable to establish a binkp connection (netmail) to either
2:2/2 or
2:203/0.
If IPv4 is busy, use IPv6. It's never busy. Welcome to the 21st
century.
Tell this to our Comcast ISP users in Pennsylvania, in order to get better speeds, they have to disable ipv6.they're damn slow.Nonsense. In fact IPv6 is a bit faster than IPv4. Less overhead.
Bj”rn Felten wrote to Dan Clough <=-
If IPv4 is busy, use IPv6. It's never busy. Welcome to the 21st
century.
Busy? It's a binkp connection attempt, not a phone call. Duh.
LOL! Your expert opinion is duly noted.
I don't have IPv6, as my ISP doesn't offer it.
I've enjoyed IPv6 for almost two decades now, despite not having
native IPv6 support. That's a really bad excuse. Try he.net like so
many of us before we got native IPv6. It's even FREE of CHARGE!
Fix your shit.
Yes, Massa Gimme-Gimme. I will, of course, immediately see if I can give your Very Important Traffic on a depreciated network protocol,
such as IPv4, higher priority.
It might mean that my paying customers will have to accept reduced speed, but I'm sure they understand that a VIP, entitled non-paying client, must be given the highest priority.
Ward Dossche wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Trying to submit a FidoNews article (just a "Food for Thought"), but am unable to establish a binkp connection (netmail) to either 2:2/2 or 2:203/0.
It doesn't work if you don't want it to work. It works just fine here.
IPv4/IPv6 is not an excuse, there are other ways to submit an article
if it's an obstacle.
=== Start of Windows Clipboard ===Thanks for the advice, but it's much easier for one person to change their name than for thousands of people to update their configs.
XLATCHARSET CP850 CP866 850_866.chs
=== End of Windows Clipboard ===
=== Start of Windows Clipboard ===Thanks for the advice, but it's much easier for one person to change
XLATCHARSET CP850 CP866 850_866.chs
=== End of Windows Clipboard ===
their name than for thousands of people to update their configs.
What else one person should change for other people convenience?How does my name look now? It's in my native Cyrillic. Everyone, please add charset 866 to your editors. Nonsense.
Yes, Massa Gimme-Gimme. I will, of course, immediately see if I can
give your Very Important Traffic on a depreciated network protocol,
such as IPv4, higher priority.
It's not "deprecated" (the proper spelling of what you mean).
It's a world-wide standard, in widespread use.
Also, I wasn't asking for
higher priority, just that your system match what it advertises as it's capabilities. CM/IBN/INA. There aren't any "busy signals".
Why would it affect them at all? Are you using some kind of deprecated hardware, or something?
Strange how your system(s) are so unreliable.
What else one person should change for other people convenience?How does my name look now? It's in my native Cyrillic. Everyone,
please add charset 866 to your editors. Nonsense.
Who uses IPv6 networks anyways,
That depends very much on what values you actually look at. Most FTN operators count as "end user", so traffic comparison by volume on the carrier level is maybe not the best metric here. Also, this heavily depends on geography. Just to get an idea (yes, I know this is from
2022, but you still get the idea): https://labs.ripe.net/author/wilhelm/ipv6-10-years-out-an-analysis-in- users-ta bles-and-traffic/
they're damn slow.
Nonsense. In fact IPv6 is a bit faster than IPv4. Less overhead.
Tell this to our Comcast ISP users in Pennsylvania, in order to get
better speeds, they have to disable ipv6.
I could not care less about having/using IPv6. Version 4 works just
fine.
GUI viewers/editors shouldn't have any issues too.
What else one person should change for other people convenience?
Everyone, please add charset 866 to your editors.
Bj”rn Felten wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Yes, Massa Gimme-Gimme. I will, of course, immediately see if I can
give your Very Important Traffic on a depreciated network protocol,
such as IPv4, higher priority.
It's a world-wide standard, in widespread use.
It was.
A standard from 1981, when the web was more than a decade
from being introduced and worldwide (sic) internet adoption was still another decade away.
Also, I wasn't asking for
higher priority, just that your system match what it advertises as it's capabilities. CM/IBN/INA. There aren't any "busy signals".
What signals were they then? If you had quoted the errors you
received, it might have helped you identify the problem.
Why would it affect them at all? Are you using some kind of deprecated hardware, or something?
You have no idea about my system, so why even try to tell me how to operate it?
Strange how your system(s) are so unreliable.
Not to any of my paying clients or free-of-charge important Fidonet friends, as far as I know. Yes, I know that there still are some IPv4 problems, but it does not seem to be a problem for all of them since
they all use IPv6; therefore, my IPv6 theory. If you have any other explanation, I'm all ears.
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Dan Clough <=-
I could not care less about having/using IPv6. Version 4 works just
fine.
IPv4 will not keep "working just fine".
In fact for many in the world
it already has stopped "working just fine" after their ISP put their
IPv4 behind CGNAT.
IPv4 will not keep "working just fine".
Is that like Al Gore saying the world would end "soon" due to "global warming" about 25 years ago?
In fact for many in the world it already has stopped "working just
fine" after their ISP put their IPv4 behind CGNAT.
Yeah, well, I can't worry about (or fix) all the world's problems.
Many people go to sleep hungry every night too. That sucks, but I
can't fix that,
Tell this to our Comcast ISP users in Pennsylvania, in order toThen Comcast and/or their users are doing something wrong. Native IPv6
get better speeds, they have to disable ipv6.
is definitely not slower than IPv4.
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Dan Clough <=-
In fact for many in the world it already has stopped "working just
fine" after their ISP put their IPv4 behind CGNAT.
Yeah, well, I can't worry about (or fix) all the world's problems.
Many people go to sleep hungry every night too. That sucks, but I
can't fix that,
But contrary to all these other problems, this is something you CAN do something about. You CAN upgrade your system to support IPv6. You may perceive it as not needed and you may be lucky and indeed not need it
any time soon. IPv4 exhaustion may not be as big a problem in your neck of the woods as it is here. In the beginning your part of the world got
a lot of IPv4. More than a fair share. So be it. But what happened to
hat pioneer spirit that once made Fidonet great? Fidonet sysops were always eager to try out new technology. so what is stopping you from giving IPv6 a try? It isn't really hard once you get the hang of it.
Why not give it a try? Just for the fun of it?
You are welcome to join the IPv6 echo where you can get all the help
you need from the IPv6 gurus in Fidonet.
Then Comcast and/or their users are doing something wrong. Native
IPv6 is definitely not slower than IPv4.
It's definitely slower by design:
- Bigger headers (40 B vs. 20 B) add per-packet overhead.
- Path MTU Discovery failures (blocked ICMPv6 "Too Big") lead to drops/retries.
- Transitional tunnels (e.g. 6in4, Teredo) introduce
extra hops and encapsulation cost.
- Less hardware offload and OS-stack tuning for IPv6 vs. decades of
IPv4 optimizations.
But what happened to hat pioneer spirit that once made Fidonet
great? Fidonet sysops were always eager to try out new technology.
so what is stopping you from giving IPv6 a try? It isn't really hard
once you get the hang of it. Why not give it a try? Just for the fun
of it?
My ISP doesn't offer me IPv6.
I'm not interested in putzing around to get some "workaround" tunnel
thing working.
Don't have time for such silliness, and there is no "fun of it" for
me, as I'm just not interested in something which isn't a problem for
me.
You are welcome to join the IPv6 echo where you can get all the
help you need from the IPv6 gurus in Fidonet.
Yes, I read the echo. Seems to be mostly a self-congratulatory
meeting place of mutual celebration/masturbation,
If IPv6 is noticeably slower than IPv4 someone is doing somethingMaybe in Europe IPv6 works better, but here in the U.S. it works significantly slower and unstable.
wrong.
If IPv6 is noticeably slower than IPv4 someone is doing something
wrong.
Maybe in Europe IPv6 works better, but here in the U.S. it works significantly slower and unstable.
NM.
Hello Michiel!
Friday May 30 2025 18:01, you wrote to me:
If IPv6 is noticeably slower than IPv4 someone is doing something wrong.Maybe in Europe IPv6 works better, but here in the U.S. it works significantly slower and unstable.
Alex
--- GoldED+/W64-MSVC 1.1.5-b20250409
* Origin: Glory to Ukraine! Glory to Heroes! Dump Trump! (1:129/14.1)
Where is your evidence of that? Seems pretty much the same.Simply sending 56-byte ICMP echo requests is not enough, this cannot serve as evidence.
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Dan Clough <=-
But what happened to hat pioneer spirit that once made Fidonet
great? Fidonet sysops were always eager to try out new technology.
so what is stopping you from giving IPv6 a try? It isn't really hard
once you get the hang of it. Why not give it a try? Just for the fun
of it?
My ISP doesn't offer me IPv6.
And you are stuck with them? If so I do not envy you. Here I have a choice between over a dozen providers distributed over three fysical media. Nearly all of them offer native IPv6.
I'm not interested in putzing around to get some "workaround" tunnel
thing working.
I have played around with tunnels before I got native IPv6 now nearly a decade ago. It was fun and an interesting experience.
Don't have time for such silliness, and there is no "fun of it" for
me, as I'm just not interested in something which isn't a problem for
me.
If you are no longer interested in trying out new things that seem to have no obvious purpose at first glance, why are you still in Fidonet? Fidonet is like a shipping company without passengers or cargo. But we just keep the ships running for the fun of it. It serves no real
purpose any more.
You are welcome to join the IPv6 echo where you can get all the
help you need from the IPv6 gurus in Fidonet.
Yes, I read the echo. Seems to be mostly a self-congratulatory
meeting place of mutual celebration/masturbation,
Like most of Fidonet...
Simply sending 56-byte ICMP echo requests is not enough, this cannot serve as evidence.
You need to send real payloads over a period of a few days to gather some evidence.
I've worked in MSPs my whole career, so I have real-life experience with how IPv6 works here in Pennsylvania and IT SUCKS.
So a 1GB file was 2 seconds quicker over ipv6 than ipv4 from someNope, this is still not a valid test.
random host I found. I suppose this isn't enough of a test either?
Yes, it is the only realistic option I have. Not uncommon in the USA as far as I know. Cable/broadband companies often have their "territory"
and they are the only provider in that area.
Not really, it's quite different from most as far as I can see. I mean, what "real purpose" does it serve? Just a way for folks to congratulate each other on having an IPv6 address? LOL Very silly.
I always thought "old hardware or some archaic OS" was the very
definition of a FTN system these days... ;-)
I think the question is not so much about the technical support (for
Linux or *BSD, IPv6 is available since around 2000). I know a couple
of admins who -even if their provider supports IPv6- simply disable it
on all machines due to the unnecessary complexity it comes with.
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Dan Clough <=-
If you are no longer interested in trying out new things that seem to have no obvious purpose at first glance, why are you still in Fidonet? Fidonet is like a shipping company without passengers or cargo. But we just keep the ships running for the fun of it. It serves no real
purpose any more.
I think the question is not so much about the technical support (for
Linux or *BSD, IPv6 is available since around 2000). I know a couple
of admins who -even if their provider supports IPv6- simply disable
it on all machines due to the unnecessary complexity it comes with.
So why the reluctance to embrace IPv6?
ISDN offered benefits: higher bandwidth (i.e., lower transfer costs), channel bundling,
using your voice phone while data transmission is running,
just to name a few. IPv6 offers nothing for most sysops apart
from time to spend on understanding it, making it work, keeping it running.
I think the question is not so much about the technical support
(for Linux or *BSD, IPv6 is available since around 2000). I know
a couple of admins who -even if their provider supports IPv6-
simply disable it on all machines due to the unnecessary
complexity it comes with.
"lazy" is the wrong word here. Not everyone is a retired person in a single household. Having a job, running a family, maintaining a house, vehicles and other things the familiy needs consumes lots of time
already. When there is not much time left in the first place, why
bother with IPv6?
I beg to differ: I spent the better part of a weekend understanding
just the parts I need to get everything running with my DSlite
connection (mainly DHCP, DNS, routing). It *is* more complex than IPv4
in many places,
I do not see any device or OS being sold as "IPv6 only" in the
medium-term future. There are way to many installations that require
IPv4 compatibility. There is no market for an "IPv6 only" device or software.
ISDN offered benefits: higher bandwidth (i.e., lower transfer costs),
channel bundling,
why bother with IPv6?
I do not see any device or OS being sold as "IPv6 only" in the
medium-term future. There are way to many installations that require
IPv4 compatibility. There is no market for an "IPv6 only" device or
software.
Hello Michiel!
01 Jun 25 17:46, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:
costs),ISDN offered benefits: higher bandwidth (i.e., lower transfer
channel bundling,
I've been following this conversation back and forward for a while,
and I wanted to break in as someone mentioned a group/echo about
Sysops using IPV6, and I was wondering if someone could tell me which group this is? I'm assuming it's Fidonet?
It is the IPV6 echo created by me in 2011. Available almost anywhere in Fidonet. Your host would be good starting point.
You are welcome to join.
It is the IPV6 echo created by me in 2011. Available almost
anywhere in Fidonet. Your host would be good starting point.
You are welcome to join.
Ah OK, I did subscribe to the IPV6 echo a couple of days ago but no traffic so far.
ISDN offered benefits: higher bandwidth (i.e., lower transfer
costs), channel bundling,
That depended heavily on the country you lived in (and the phone
companies offering the service).
Yeah, why go for IPv6 if IPv4 works just fine?
You ignored the drawbacks of POTS,
Being an "early adopter" for anything is something you should decide
on carefully. I have done so in the past, sometimes it turned out to
be a good idea, but often enough you just say "I should have waited
with that" in hindsight.
Yeah, horrible from a security point of view.I do not want all
devices in my network to have routable addresses, heck no! Even more
so when thinking about the address being permanent. IPv6 requires much more thought on network security.
why bother with IPv6?
It will do so for a very long time, at least in private networks.
Actually, I think I was well prepared, but never mind...
How is a network interface having one 32bit address supposed to be
less complex than a network interface having (at least) three
different 128bit addresses on top of that?
IPv6 is practically unusable without working DNS,
I do not see any device or OS being sold as "IPv6 only" in the
medium-term future. There are way to many installations that
require IPv4 compatibility. There is no market for an "IPv6
only" device or software.
Sure, as these are large companies.
However, the smaller your private network is and the more legacy
devices you have there, the less real benefit there is in migration.
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Gerrit Kuehn <=-
ISDN offered benefits: higher bandwidth (i.e., lower transfer costs), channel bundling,
The lower transfer cost was not all that spectacular. 64k vs 56k or
28k6. 1.5 dB at best and 3 dB worst case. Against considerable cost for the equipment and an almost doubled montly feee.
using your voice phone while data transmission is running,
Having two "lines" was indeed a notable "plus". I would have loved to have two "lines" in the mid nineties.
Yeah, why go for IPv6 if IPv4 works just fine?
You ignored the drawbacks of POTS,
Yeah, horrible from a security point of view.I do not want all
devices in my network to have routable addresses, heck no! Even more
so when thinking about the address being permanent. IPv6 requires
much more thought on network security.
It will do so for a very long time, at least in private networks.
How is a network interface having one 32bit address supposed to be
less complex than a network interface having (at least) three
different 128bit addresses on top of that?
IPv6 is practically unusable without working DNS,
Having two "lines" was indeed a notable "plus". I would have
loved to have two "lines" in the mid nineties.
I had an ISDN line at home in the 90s.
I used a Motorola BitSurfr modem to connect to a Shiva LANRover at
work, which got me onto the internet. I could bind both channels to
get a 112k connect to the internet or use one 56k line for the BBS
inbound line and one 56k line for internet connectivity. That was
about the same time that I started polling for Fido mail via FTP, and
it changed the BBS from polling once a night to a couple of times a
day. Good times.
Yeah, why go for IPv6 if IPv4 works just fine?
And you are right: Leap-frogging ISDN was an option.
If I had adopted IPv6 back in 2000 when it first became available,
I'd certainly have learned at lot about it. But a good part of that knowledge would be obsolete by now.
In the end, we are discussing about the best choice of time when to
move on. This heavily depends on each personal situation, and mine is different from yours, that's all. I do not see much use in continuing
this discussion.
I'd rather say "IPv6 is not working fine" in this case. It cannot
fully replace IPv4 at this point.
Yeah, horrible from a security point of view.I do not want all
devices in my network to have routable addresses, heck no! Even
more so when thinking about the address being permanent. IPv6
requires much more thought on network security.
Yes, but that is the pathological setup where you do not want to offer
any services to the world (like binkd). Everything beyond that will require reworking at least your perimeter firewall.
Why?
In the end, we are discussing about the best choice of time when to
move on. This heavily depends on each personal situation, and mine is
different from yours, that's all. I do not see much use in continuing
this discussion.
Why?
Why?
My home network contains maybe 50 devices these days. A good fraction
of those I would call "legacy" in the sense that they are not
supported by their manufacturer anymore. Quite a few of them are older than 10 years. However, I would never call my home network anything
but "small", even if it contained twice the number of devices.
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Gerrit Kuehn <=-
My home network contains maybe 50 devices these days. A good fraction
of those I would call "legacy" in the sense that they are not
supported by their manufacturer anymore. Quite a few of them are older than 10 years. However, I would never call my home network anything
but "small", even if it contained twice the number of devices.
Then we seem to have different - incompatible - notions of the concepts of "large" and "small".
However. I still don't see how having a large number of so called "legacy" devices stops anyone from adding IPv6 capability to their system.
I still don't see why he, or me, or anyone, would want to do that when
it offers absolutely ZERO "capability" to what we already have. My
I wish you could understand that.
I really don't know why you can't.
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Dan Clough <=-
I still don't see why he, or me, or anyone, would want to do that when
it offers absolutely ZERO "capability" to what we already have. My
[..]
I wish you could understand that.
Why? How does it help you if I would express a better understanding of your situation?
I really don't know why you can't.
I see no advantage for me to spend time and energy in trying to end
your ignorance. So you shall just have to live with it.
Gerrit is in a different situation than you. He DOES have native IPv6 from his provider. Plus that he does NOT have a globally routable
public IPv4 address from that same provider. HIS IPv4 is NOT working perfectly. The logical response to that situation is to use IPv6 for
his Fidonet connections.
Some day you may find yourself in a similar situation. You may or may
not regret to not have pepaired for that.
I really don't know why you can't.
I see no advantage for me to spend time and energy in trying to
end your ignorance. So you shall just have to live with it.
There is no "my ignorance" here.
You seem unable to understand that using IPv6 doesn't benefit me in
ANY way, and the hassles of trying to use it therefore don't make any sense.
It's funny how you're more than willing to "spend time and energy" to evangelize something that is useless to many (most?) people.
Gerrit is in a different situation than you. He DOES have native
IPv6 from his provider. Plus that he does NOT have a globally
routable public IPv4 address from that same provider. HIS IPv4
is NOT working perfectly. The logical response to that situation
is to use IPv6 for his Fidonet connections.
I don't recall him saying his IPv4 isn't working well, but OK.... that
would be a different situation, if it's actually true.
You wrote "I really don't know". In my vocabulary "not knowing" implies ignorance.
They cannot be expected to "just work". Every tried to auto-discover
your 15-year-old printer on the network? Or using it afterwards when
you cannot reliably tell if your great "autoconfig" setup gives you A
or AAAA records on DNS first?
And this is coming from the most ignorant person I've ever known. =))))You wrote "I really don't know". In my vocabulary "not knowing"There is a gradation between "not knowing" and "ignorance" ... the
implies ignorance.
latter carries a definitely negative undertone ...
And this is coming from the most ignorant person I've ever known. =))))
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Dan Clough <=-
As far as I am concerned: EOT.
I don't know what the problem is with you, but there must be a pillWard, the problem is with you, not me. You're a loser who hasn't achieved anything in his life.
for it. Be careful you don't take the one to cure constipation.Thanks for the concern, but I'll leave the laxatives to you - clearly, you're the one full of it.
\%/@rd
You, Bjorn, Ward .... Birds of a feather.
Ward, the problem is with you, not me. You're a loser who hasn't achieved anything in his life.
| Sysop: | Saxainden |
|---|---|
| Location: | Littleton, CO |
| Users: | 58 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 14:01:48 |
| Calls: | 757 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 32 |
| Messages: | 43,736 |