FreeOZ论坛

标题: 打算建立一个IPv6的网站，请推荐web模板和便宜的空间？ [打印本页]

作者: 江南柴进 时间: 26-8-2010 15:44
标题: 打算建立一个IPv6的网站，请推荐web模板和便宜的空间？
IPv4的地址消耗殆尽，IPv6是大势所趋，随着windows 7的普及，智能电话的弥漫，IPv6将是每一个人网络知识的必须。

打算建一个IPv6的信息网站，免费推广IPv6，内容是IPv6相关的一切，哪怕是八卦。

俺虽然懂点网络，但是对web设计不在行，在这里试探一下，有没有人有兴趣合伙搞

[ 本帖最后由 mohan29 于 25-11-2010 12:12 编辑 ]

作者: kent 时间: 26-8-2010 16:46
关于IPv6你都有哪些资料呢？

作者: 江南柴进 时间: 26-8-2010 17:46
资料嘛，不太全，目前而言，公司要做Telstra的几个IPv6的项目，估计东西会陆续收集起来。

作者: kaile 时间: 26-8-2010 20:03
下载一个DEDECMS就完了，不需要你懂WEB设计。这个是目前最好的CMS，符合中中国人习惯的

作者: key 时间: 26-8-2010 20:46
95就有rfc 2460，然后十五年过去了，ipv6是不是大势所趋已经很难说了。
因为现在ipsec, nat等技术的流行，已经不是15年前所考虑的那种地址问题以及ip
网络安全问题。在我印象中，日本是最支技ipv6的国家，天朝则是吹水吹得最多的国家，
美国是最消极的国家。nokia在十年前在天朝推动ipv6基础网络建设和研究，花了一笔又一笔钱，
哈哈，可惜什么也没有。清华有个学生小刘同学写了一个ipv6 broker可能是用得最多的一个
国家ipv6 service吧。

原帖由 mohan29 于 26-8-2010 14:44 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

IPv4的地址消耗殆尽，IPv6是大势所趋，随着windows 7的普及，智能电话的弥漫，IPv6将是每一个人网络知识的必须。

打算建一个IPv6的信息网站，免费推广IPv6，内容是IPv6相关的一切，哪怕是八卦。

俺虽然懂点网络 ...

作者: yuba 时间: 26-8-2010 21:13
先抢注几个域名

作者: coredump 时间: 26-8-2010 22:27
关于地址耗尽，一般来说，传统上都说3年

作者: key 时间: 27-8-2010 10:57
的确很传统。我听到这个说法是00年，到现在已经传统了十年了。

原帖由 coredump 于 26-8-2010 21:27 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

关于地址耗尽，一般来说，传统上都说3年

作者: coredump 时间: 27-8-2010 11:04
中国不会真的大力推动IPv6的，全改IPv6了，GFW就变成一张破纸了，现有的GFW核心技术几乎完全依赖IPv4的缺陷

作者: key 时间: 27-8-2010 11:38
全搞ipv6，gfw侦听所有的extension header，把所有的extension header都灭了，
各位同学也只有干瞪眼。只要你控制了核心路由，部分支持协议，神仙都没有办法。

原帖由 coredump 于 27-8-2010 10:04 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

中国不会真的大力推动IPv6的，全改IPv6了，GFW就变成一张破纸了，现有的GFW核心技术几乎完全依赖IPv4的缺陷

作者: 江南柴进 时间: 27-8-2010 11:41
是啊，十多年前，NAT和CIDR的出现，让IPv6寂灭了一段时间。尽管如此，2012或2013年IPv4地址还是注定要deplete。所以SP已经无法避免这个类似Y2K的问题了。

中国的动力最大，因为中国已经很难申请到IPv4地址了。美国不急是因为美国hold了相当大的一部分IPv4地址。

澳大利亚都急了。Telstra 工程部的老大们，天天盯着我们，十分stressful，因为TID--相当于中国的China163，马上就要上IS-IS IPv6了。

[ 本帖最后由 mohan29 于 27-8-2010 10:44 编辑 ]

作者: 江南柴进 时间: 27-8-2010 11:42
中国一定要搞，所以一切都要采购新设备，发财机会又来了，哪个老大不喜欢？

作者: key 时间: 27-8-2010 13:30
天朝要搞国域网，只需要一个C类就足够了，其他就是NAT搞定。
当初四所高校联合的一个ipv6项目只申请了5万人民币的经费，相比以百万，千万或上亿的
“安全”经费，简直就是开玩笑。如果不是03年小日本同学仗义，让伟大的nec皇军来打救，
估计第二期的实验网还在嘴巴上（第一期是nokia同学搞的，主要搞高校）。

原帖由 mohan29 于 27-8-2010 10:42 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

中国一定要搞，所以一切都要采购新设备，发财机会又来了，哪个老大不喜欢？

作者: 江南柴进 时间: 27-8-2010 13:54
Quote from <IPv6 Essentials Second Edition>:

For historic reasons, organizations and government agencies in the United States use
approximately 60 percent of the allocatable IPv4 address space. The remaining 40
percent is shared by the rest of the world. Of the 6.4 billion people in the world,
approximately 330 million live in North America, 807 million in Europe, and 3.6 bil-
lion in Asia. This means that the 5 percent of the world’s population living in the
United States has 60 percent of the address space allocated. Of the 3.6 billion people
living in Asia, approximately 364 million have Internet access, and the growth rate is
exponential. This is one explanation of why the deployment of IPv6 in Asia is much
more common than in Europe and the United States. (All statistics are based on 2005
numbers.)

The IPv4 address space has a theoretical limit of 4.3 billion addresses. However,
early distribution methods allocated addresses inefficiently. Consequently, some
organizations obtained address blocks much larger than they needed, and addresses

that could be used elsewhere are now unavailable. If it were possible to reallocate the
IPv4 address space, it could be used much more effectively, but this process is not
possible, and a global reallocation and renumbering is simply not practical. We also
have to be aware of the fact that today, as the IPv4 address space approaches exhaus-
tion, only about 14 percent of the world’s population has Internet access. If we want
to provide Internet access to only 20 percent of the world’s population, we will need
the IPv6 address space. And this calculation does not take into account that in the
future we will need IP addresses for billions of devices. Vendors in all industries are
developing monitoring, control, and management systems based on IP.

作者: 江南柴进 时间: 27-8-2010 13:56

原帖由 key 于 27-8-2010 12:30 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

天朝要搞国域网，只需要一个C类就足够了，其他就是NAT搞定。
当初四所高校联合的一个ipv6项目只申请了5万人民币的经费，相比以百万，千万或上亿的
“安全”经费，简直就是开玩笑。如果不是03年小日本同学仗义，让伟 ...

254个地址去NAT全国的私有地址？什么东东有这个能量？
要不就是闭网。只让一部分人可以internet，比如，部级干部以上。呵呵，那也不够用啊。

[ 本帖最后由 mohan29 于 27-8-2010 13:48 编辑 ]

作者: key 时间: 28-8-2010 20:57

原帖由 mohan29 于 27-8-2010 12:54 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

Quote from :

For historic reasons, organizations and government agencies in the United States use
approximately 60 percent of the allocatable IPv4 address space. The remaining 40
percent is share ...

这本破书哪个家伙写的？

We also
have to be aware of the fact that today, as the IPv4 address space approaches exhaus-
tion, only about 14 percent of the world’s population has Internet access. If we want
to provide Internet access to only 20 percent of the world’s population, we will need
the IPv6 address space.

Having internet access与是否独立ip完全是两回事。你知道有多少机构或ISP是通过proxy上网的吗？
几万人的网络只需要几个用于做load balancing的外网IP就可以了。这里还没有提到NAT呢。

而以前认为必须使用独立IP的服务，比如p2p数据传送业务，现在已经大量通过分布式服务器转接来完成，
使得大量内网机器可以实现p2p数据传送。至于什么穿墙翻蔷还不计在其中。

而象skype这种逐利型自定协议，还会自动找http/https proxy，把ip层干的事做到应用层。

还有大量的vpn, address broker, security tunnel之类的东西。一定要分个具体的ip才能internet access，
都不知道是哪个年代的事儿啦。

不好意思，抬扛抬到底了。

作者: kaile 时间: 29-8-2010 00:30
而象skype这种逐利型自定协议，还会自动找http/https proxy，把ip层干的事做到应用层

求详细

作者: 江南柴进 时间: 30-8-2010 10:57
嗯。NAT是不错，代理也不赖。但是：

NATs have become pretty common in IPv4 networks, but they create serious disadvantages in manage-
ment and operation: in order to do the address mapping, NATs modify end node
addresses in the IP header. Very often, application level gateways (ALG) are used in
conjunction with NAT to provide application-level transparency. There is a long list
of protocols and applications that create problems when used in a NAT environ-
ment. IPsec and peer-to-peer applications are two well-known examples.

作者: clarkli 时间: 31-8-2010 00:37
建议推广国防科技大的十进制网络，咳咳

作者: 江南柴进 时间: 7-9-2010 12:14
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/231050,analysis-whats-holding-back-ipv6.aspx
这个文章值得看看。解释得比较清楚。

作者: 江南柴进 时间: 25-11-2010 12:14
算了，看样子没有人有兴趣。明年开始做IPv6的项目了。打算自己单干。请问有没有哪位大侠可以推荐一个较好的web模板站，设计网页俺确实不在行。哪里有便宜一点的空间可租？我站名都想好了。就叫www.ipv64u.net。哪位有更好的意见？

作者: coredump 时间: 25-11-2010 12:21

原帖由 mohan29 于 25-11-2010 11:14 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

算了，看样子没有人有兴趣。明年开始做IPv6的项目了。打算自己单干。请问有没有哪位大侠可以推荐一个较好的web模板站，设计网页俺确实不在行。哪里有便宜一点的空间可租？我站名都想好了。就叫www.ipv64u.net。哪位有 ...

这个网址估计会被河蟹

作者: 江南柴进 时间: 25-11-2010 12:33
不至于吧。 ipv6 for you。难道所有有64的都完蛋？

作者: 江南柴进 时间: 25-11-2010 12:34
要不就是ipv6fourU，俺想象力不够啊。

作者: zycbob 时间: 25-11-2010 12:41
ipv6toU ipv62U

作者: niuzefeng 时间: 25-11-2010 13:26
ipv6迟早要用的，关键是人们需求和技术限制之间矛盾激烈到什么程度，如果有ipv6上面有个杀手级的应用，可能让ipv6的等待时间大大缩短，就如同web之于ipv4网络。

作者: coredump 时间: 25-11-2010 13:35
IPv6和NAT是诸葛亮和周瑜的关系

作者: 江南柴进 时间: 25-11-2010 14:43

原帖由 coredump 于 25-11-2010 13:35 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

IPv6和NAT是诸葛亮和周瑜的关系

说的很好。可惜周公瑾迟早是要死的。这是另一个类似y2K问题。原因之一是NAT is overly complex where large number of users are involved.

[ 本帖最后由 mohan29 于 25-11-2010 14:45 编辑 ]

作者: 江南柴进 时间: 25-11-2010 15:44
模拟环境已经搭好了。全程IPv6，DNS，Apache，DHCPv6..

zycbob老大能不能推荐一个web模板啊?多谢了.我的阿帕奇目前是空的. -----

It works!
This is the default web page for this server.

The web server software is running but no content has been added, yet.

作者: zycbob 时间: 25-11-2010 16:38
去wordpress 主题网站看看应该有一款适合你

作者: 江南柴进 时间: 29-11-2010 10:47
A good argument about NAT:

Do we really need to have IPv6 when Nat conserves address space and aids security?
Daniel Golding
Tuesday 28 February 2006 09:28

Internet: Love it or hate it, Network Address Translation will not be going away soon.

It is a common belief that IP addresses are running out. Every device on a network needs to be uniquely identified by its IP address, and the problem is that there are simply not enough IPv4 addresses.

The key advantage of IPv6 is that its addresses are 128 bits in length, as opposed to the 32-bit length of IPv4 addresses. This results in a huge number of IP addresses.

The big question is are we really running out of IPv4 addresses? If so, IPv6 is certainly a reasonable solution. But thanks to Network Address Translation (Nat), IPv4 addresses are, in fact, far from depleted.

Nat offers the ability to share a single public, globally routable IP address among many internet hosts. This is valuable in the IPv4 world, where public IP addresses are, by necessity, conserved.

Address conservation would not be as necessary if IPv6 were deployed, and this has prompted Nat opponents to champion the adoption of the new protocol. They argue that adopting IPv6 (and eliminating Nat) will make the internet a better and safer place for all of us, enable exciting new technologies. They believe it will usher in the age of the "end-to-end" internet.

But is Nat really such a bad thing? And if it is, why are we so attached to it?

Nat is a technology that some people love to hate. Some dislike it because, early on, it tended to break some applications, in particular certain gaming, client- server and virtual private network technologies embedded their host's private IP address inside data packets, where Nat translators couldn't find it.

The result was that data from Nat hosts could reach servers, but the applications on those servers could not form a connection with the requestor because they tried to use the host's private address instead of their Nat gateway's public IP address

But the days of Nat breaking applications have long since gone. Today, applications are written with the assumption that Nat will be used. This means that embedding IP addresses inside data packets - always a violation of networking standards - is now considered a poor coding practice.

Peer-to-peer applications that would have trouble establishing communications if both hosts lay behind Nat use a variety of mechanisms (usually rendezvous servers on the internet) to relay information.

So why is Nat vilified by some? The answer is that application developers do not enjoy implementing these sometimes complex Nat workarounds. Their employers would prefer that they didn't have to deploy rendezvous servers or spend time on coding Nat traversal routines.

Microsoft, in particular, is a vocal critic of Nat, largely because of its Xbox gaming platform. Most Xbox consoles are network connected to enable users to take part in multiplayer games. Because most home users employ Nat to allow the connection of multiple hosts while using a single public IP address, most Xbox units are behind Nat.

This makes coding multiplayer games for the Xbox more difficult and costs Microsoft money. For one thing, developer time is not free. For another, game developers such as Microsoft typically need to deploy rendezvous servers to allow Nat gamers to "meet" and establish games rather than simply proceeding in a fully peer-to-peer manner.

Microsoft is not the only developer with this view. Many peer-to-peer applications are emerging, and their development and implementation are invariably complicated by the prevalence of Nat. These applications include instant messaging, file sharing and collaboration applications. Their developers speak wistfully of an end-to-end internet, a network without Nat. To them, it would be a better internet.

If Nat is an evil for some, it is an absolute necessity for others. Leaving aside the issue of helping to conserve address space, one must examine the other primary driver for Nat deployment - security.

Nat helps to obscure the interior of a private network, making network scanning difficult, and it functions as a poor man's firewall. Nat opponents claim that a properly designed and implemented stateful firewall will serve the same purpose.

This may be true, but Nat has significant advantages over firewalls, including ease of implementation, low cost, and essentially foolproof operation.

Most consumers with home routers have deployed Nat without even needing to be aware of its existence. Such things cannot be said for any high-quality firewall.

Ironically, Microsoft, one of Nat's greatest opponents (and therefore an IPv6 proponent), is the primary reason Nat is necessary. The Windows operating system is fertile soil for hackers.

Numerous experiments have shown that an internet-connected but unprotected Windows workstation will not last long against regular port scans and penetration attempts. The simple expedient of placing a Windows PC behind a Nat router changes the equation considerably, giving even unsecured Windows PCs an environment in which they can operate safely.

As long as Windows is the primary operating system for internet-connected hosts (a condition that is unlikely to change any time soon), Nat will be an important part of most users' security perimeters.

Peer-to-peer application developers will continue to write Nat traversal code, and their companies will deploy rendezvous servers, just as they have been doing.

If this is an evil, then it is a small one compared to the idea of an internet without Nat. Bowing to this reality, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has set aside a series of private IPv6 addresses, known as Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses, whose intended application is obviously Nat (IETF RFC 4193).

It was clear to the IETF that Nat is not going away soon, and that the lack of Nat was a disincentive to IPv6 deployment, rather than a benefit.

The application developers who complained the loudest about Nat are a small proportion of internet users, and their voices are clearly drowned out by those with valid concerns about internet security.

The elimination of Nat is not a reason to move to IPv6 - that elimination is neither desirable nor mandated in IPv6 as currently specified.

Nat is far from an unmitigated evil, even though some like to portray it that way. In fact, it is a significant contributor to many network security solutions.

[ 本帖最后由 mohan29 于 29-11-2010 10:55 编辑 ]

作者: 江南柴进 时间: 3-12-2010 10:00
多谢楼上指点。wordpress真不错。强烈推荐。

欢迎光临 FreeOZ论坛 (https://www.freeoz.org/ibbs/)