Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: nsp: ipv6

Curious choices made by Cisco/Tandberg

 

 

nsp ipv6 RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


owens at nysernet

Mar 3, 2011, 7:35 AM

Post #1 of 16 (2414 views)
Permalink
Curious choices made by Cisco/Tandberg

We have a Cisco/Tandberg H.323 endpoint, the C20 model. This week the network engineer who takes care of it decided to do a code upgrade to fix a security problem, and found out that the firmware now supports IPv6. Good news, right? Well, not exactly:

http://www.tandberg.com/collateral/documentation/User_Manuals/Cisco%20Telepresence%20System%20ProfileC20%20and%20QuickSetC20%20Administrator%20Guide%20(TC4.0).pdf

Network [1..1] IPStack
Select which internet protocols the system will support.
Requires user role: ADMIN
Value space: <IPv4/IPv6>
IPv4: IP version 4 is supported.
IPv6: IP version 6 is supported. The IPv4 settings (IP Address, IP Subnet Mask and Gateway) will be disabled.
^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^

Yes, that's right, you can have IPv6, but only if you're willing to forego IPv4. On the one hand, I want to applaud their optimism. But I'm too stunned by the cluelessness. . .

Bill.


nick at foobar

Mar 3, 2011, 7:38 AM

Post #2 of 16 (2325 views)
Permalink
Re: Curious choices made by Cisco/Tandberg [In reply to]

On 03/03/2011 15:35, Bill Owens wrote:
> IPv6: IP version 6 is supported. The IPv4 settings (IP Address, IP
> Subnet Mask and Gateway) will be disabled.

ROFL. That is too funny for words.

Nick


mohacsi at niif

Mar 3, 2011, 8:31 AM

Post #3 of 16 (2323 views)
Permalink
Re: Curious choices made by Cisco/Tandberg [In reply to]

On Thu, 3 Mar 2011, Bill Owens wrote:

> We have a Cisco/Tandberg H.323 endpoint, the C20 model. This week the network engineer who takes care of it decided to do a code upgrade to fix a security problem, and found out that the firmware now supports IPv6. Good news, right? Well, not exactly:
>
> http://www.tandberg.com/collateral/documentation/User_Manuals/Cisco%20Telepresence%20System%20ProfileC20%20and%20QuickSetC20%20Administrator%20Guide%20(TC4.0).pdf
>
> Network [1..1] IPStack
> Select which internet protocols the system will support.
> Requires user role: ADMIN
> Value space: <IPv4/IPv6>
> IPv4: IP version 4 is supported.
> IPv6: IP version 6 is supported. The IPv4 settings (IP Address, IP Subnet Mask and Gateway) will be disabled.
> ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^
>
> Yes, that's right, you can have IPv6, but only if you're willing to forego IPv4. On the one hand, I want to applaud their optimism. But I'm too stunned by the cluelessness. . .

Almost the same at Polycom. Your system can registered either via IPv4
or via IPv6. Exclusive OR!

Best Regards,
Janos Mohacsi


marty at akamai

Mar 3, 2011, 8:38 AM

Post #4 of 16 (2322 views)
Permalink
Re: Curious choices made by Cisco/Tandberg [In reply to]

On 3/3/11 11:31 AM, "Mohacsi Janos" <mohacsi [at] niif> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2011, Bill Owens wrote:
>
>> We have a Cisco/Tandberg H.323 endpoint, the C20 model. This week the network
>> engineer who takes care of it decided to do a code upgrade to fix a security
>> problem, and found out that the firmware now supports IPv6. Good news, right?
>> Well, not exactly:
>>
>> http://www.tandberg.com/collateral/documentation/User_Manuals/Cisco%20Telepre
>> sence%20System%20ProfileC20%20and%20QuickSetC20%20Administrator%20Guide%20(TC
>> 4.0).pdf
>>
>> Network [1..1] IPStack
>> Select which internet protocols the system will support.
>> Requires user role: ADMIN
>> Value space: <IPv4/IPv6>
>> IPv4: IP version 4 is supported.
>> IPv6: IP version 6 is supported. The IPv4 settings (IP Address, IP Subnet
>> Mask and Gateway) will be disabled.
>> ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Yes, that's right, you can have IPv6, but only if you're willing to forego
>> IPv4. On the one hand, I want to applaud their optimism. But I'm too stunned
>> by the cluelessness. . .
>
> Almost the same at Polycom. Your system can registered either via IPv4
> or via IPv6. Exclusive OR!
>


I wouldn't be too fast to assume that this is lack of clue. I would guess
that it's a processor limit = cost. Why would you need to dual stack your
phone regardless?

Best,

-M<


dr at cluenet

Mar 3, 2011, 8:39 AM

Post #5 of 16 (2323 views)
Permalink
Re: Curious choices made by Cisco/Tandberg [In reply to]

On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 11:38:20AM -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
> I wouldn't be too fast to assume that this is lack of clue.

Indeed.

> I would guess that it's a processor limit = cost.

Or avoiding all the complexities and failure modes of dual stack
operation.

Best regards,
Daniel

--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr [at] cluenet -- dr [at] IRCne -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0


ayourtch at gmail

Mar 3, 2011, 8:43 AM

Post #6 of 16 (2325 views)
Permalink
Re: Curious choices made by Cisco/Tandberg [In reply to]

On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Bill Owens <owens [at] nysernet> wrote:
> We have a Cisco/Tandberg H.323 endpoint, the C20 model. This week the network engineer who takes care of it decided to do a code upgrade to fix a security problem, and found out that the firmware now supports IPv6. Good news, right? Well, not exactly:
>
> http://www.tandberg.com/collateral/documentation/User_Manuals/Cisco%20Telepresence%20System%20ProfileC20%20and%20QuickSetC20%20Administrator%20Guide%20(TC4.0).pdf
>
> Network [1..1] IPStack
> Select which internet protocols the system will support.
> Requires user role: ADMIN
> Value space: <IPv4/IPv6>
> IPv4: IP version 4 is supported.
> IPv6: IP version 6 is supported. The IPv4 settings (IP Address, IP Subnet Mask and Gateway) will be disabled.
>             ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^
>
> Yes, that's right, you can have IPv6, but only if you're willing to forego IPv4. On the one hand, I want to applaud their optimism. But I'm too stunned by the cluelessness. . .
>
> Bill.
>

This avoids (by way of a tough administrative choice) a whole class of
problems that the Happy Eyeballs draft aims to solve.

Disclaimer: I have no clue why it is this way - just saying that the
value of "stupid" depends on a system of coordinates. I would imagine
there exist closed networks that are IPv6 only, and that do not use
that IPv6 for anything other than voice.

cheers,
andrew


marc.blanchet at viagenie

Mar 3, 2011, 8:44 AM

Post #7 of 16 (2323 views)
Permalink
Re: Curious choices made by Cisco/Tandberg [In reply to]

Le 11-03-03 11:38, Hannigan, Martin a écrit :
>>> ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>> Yes, that's right, you can have IPv6, but only if you're willing to forego
>>> IPv4. On the one hand, I want to applaud their optimism. But I'm too stunned
>>> by the cluelessness. . .
>>
>> Almost the same at Polycom. Your system can registered either via IPv4
>> or via IPv6. Exclusive OR!
>>
>
> I wouldn't be too fast to assume that this is lack of clue. I would guess
> that it's a processor limit = cost. Why would you need to dual stack your
> phone regardless?
>

- another phone vendor also does either v4 or v6.
- we have helped phone manufacturers and PBX for porting to IPv6.
- the main reason for the exclusive OR was simplicity for end users: as
plug and play as possible, simpler scenarios (don't need to tackle
complex IPv4-IPv6 scenarios), given the fact that the typical deployment
scenario is the phone only talks to the PBX and using a single IP is
what is needed.
- not related to processor or memory constraints.
- I'm not trying to excuse anyone, because they shall be at the end
really support dual-stack, but I'm giving some context.

Regards, Marc.

> Best,
>
> -M<


--
=========
IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca
Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca
DTN Implementation: http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64-DNS64 Opensource: http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca


owens at nysernet

Mar 3, 2011, 9:05 AM

Post #8 of 16 (2327 views)
Permalink
Re: Curious choices made by Cisco/Tandberg [In reply to]

On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 11:38:20AM -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Mar 2011, Bill Owens wrote:
> >
> >> We have a Cisco/Tandberg H.323 endpoint, the C20 model. This week the network
> >> engineer who takes care of it decided to do a code upgrade to fix a security
> >> problem, and found out that the firmware now supports IPv6. Good news, right?
>
> I wouldn't be too fast to assume that this is lack of clue. I would guess
> that it's a processor limit = cost. Why would you need to dual stack your
> phone regardless?

Not a phone - it's an HD-capable H.323 video conferencing unit:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps11333/index.html

You're exactly right, if a networked phone is in a walled garden and only talks to it's call manager, it can use anything (VoNetBIOS for all I care). In this case, the only purpose for the C20 is to make and receive video calls with outside endpoints, and I think there's a pretty clear need for it to be able to talk both v4 and v6 without being reconfigured by an admin.

That said, we already own the unit, didn't specify anything about v6 when we bought it, and aren't going to junk it just because it has this shortcoming. It probably won't even limit the useful lifetime of the unit, given the set of people we do video calls with. We do hope, though, that Cisco/Tandberg eventually decides to enable dual-stack.

Bill.


owens at nysernet

Mar 3, 2011, 9:23 AM

Post #9 of 16 (2323 views)
Permalink
Re: Curious choices made by Cisco/Tandberg [In reply to]

On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 05:43:37PM +0100, Andrew Yourtchenko wrote:
> This avoids (by way of a tough administrative choice) a whole class of
> problems that the Happy Eyeballs draft aims to solve.

True, though at a rather high cost. It's essentially the same as requiring everyone to have two PCs on their desk, one for v4 destinations and one for v6; that's what we would have to do if we wanted to be able to support both protocols for video conferencing with this box. Well, boxes in that case. We could have the "IPv4 conference room" and the "IPv6 conference room". Or, maybe not.

> Disclaimer: I have no clue why it is this way - just saying that the
> value of "stupid" depends on a system of coordinates. I would imagine
> there exist closed networks that are IPv6 only, and that do not use
> that IPv6 for anything other than voice.

Back when I used to do a lot of car maintenance on my Toyota, it was very handy to know that I only had to reach for socket wrenches on the metric side of my toolbox. If I only worked on that car I could have simplified my tool collection substantially. However, I also worked on my wife's Ford, and that meant that it was very important for me to have the imperial sizes as well. Likewise, I think that for some time it will be necessary to have v4 and v6 options for just about everything I do on the network. . .

Bill.


richih.mailinglist at gmail

Mar 3, 2011, 9:29 AM

Post #10 of 16 (2323 views)
Permalink
Re: Curious choices made by Cisco/Tandberg [In reply to]

On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 18:23, Bill Owens <owens [at] nysernet> wrote:

> Back when I used to do a lot of car maintenance on my Toyota, it was very handy to know that I only had to reach for socket wrenches on the metric side of my toolbox. If I only worked on that car I could have simplified my tool collection substantially. However, I also worked on my wife's Ford, and that meant that it was very important for me to have the imperial sizes as well. Likewise, I think that for some time it will be necessary to have v4 and v6 options for just about everything I do on the network. . .

Let's hope the world is faster in adopting IPv6 than the USA is in
adopting metric.


Richard


thomas at cis

Mar 3, 2011, 9:51 AM

Post #11 of 16 (2323 views)
Permalink
Re: Curious choices made by Cisco/Tandberg [In reply to]

They are not alone.

Avocent SVIP1020 a KVM-IP-switch works also without Dualstack -
without IPv4 when IPv6 enabled and v.v.


Regards,
Thomas


PS: yesterday avm published a new beta-firmware for fritzbox 7270, with DS-
Lite added, and IPv6 und IPv4 in the "correct" order in some menus. (they also
fixed some issues)


tedm at ipinc

Mar 3, 2011, 2:28 PM

Post #12 of 16 (2321 views)
Permalink
Re: Curious choices made by Cisco/Tandberg [In reply to]

On 3/3/2011 9:29 AM, Richard Hartmann wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 18:23, Bill Owens<owens [at] nysernet> wrote:
>
>> Back when I used to do a lot of car maintenance on my Toyota, it
>> was very handy to know that I only had to reach for socket wrenches
>> on the metric side of my toolbox. If I only worked on that car I
>> could have simplified my tool collection substantially. However, I
>> also worked on my wife's Ford, and that meant that it was very
>> important for me to have the imperial sizes as well. Likewise, I
>> think that for some time it will be necessary to have v4 and v6
>> options for just about everything I do on the network. . .
>
> Let's hope the world is faster in adopting IPv6 than the USA is in
> adopting metric.
>

From one point of view the US has adopted metric. The places that
we don't use it are mostly unimportant, with building construction
being the worst, and the corner hardware stores being the second
worst. (would it really kill anyone to bolt their kid's swingset
together with metric bolts)?

Ted

>
> Richard
>


nick at foobar

Mar 3, 2011, 3:32 PM

Post #13 of 16 (2320 views)
Permalink
Re: Curious choices made by Cisco/Tandberg [In reply to]

On 03/03/2011 22:28, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> worst. (would it really kill anyone to bolt their kid's swingset
> together with metric bolts)?

depends who you listen to, but for many of the US people I've talked to on
the matter, the answer is an emphatic yes, which as a side effect will
cause massive price inflation, isn't necessary, will require massive
retooling of all heavy industries including the auto industry (sic), will
cost too much and is frankly unamerican, useless and besides the french
thought up the system in the first place. Oh yeah, and personally they
don't like it because it's confusing.

Nick


mohacsi at niif

Mar 4, 2011, 1:59 AM

Post #14 of 16 (2305 views)
Permalink
Re: Curious choices made by Cisco/Tandberg [In reply to]

On Thu, 3 Mar 2011, Andrew Yourtchenko wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Bill Owens <owens [at] nysernet> wrote:
>> We have a Cisco/Tandberg H.323 endpoint, the C20 model. This week the network engineer who takes care of it decided to do a code upgrade to fix a security problem, and found out that the firmware now supports IPv6. Good news, right? Well, not exactly:
>>
>> http://www.tandberg.com/collateral/documentation/User_Manuals/Cisco%20Telepresence%20System%20ProfileC20%20and%20QuickSetC20%20Administrator%20Guide%20(TC4.0).pdf
>>
>> Network [1..1] IPStack
>> Select which internet protocols the system will support.
>> Requires user role: ADMIN
>> Value space: <IPv4/IPv6>
>> IPv4: IP version 4 is supported.
>> IPv6: IP version 6 is supported. The IPv4 settings (IP Address, IP Subnet Mask and Gateway) will be disabled.
>>             ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Yes, that's right, you can have IPv6, but only if you're willing to forego IPv4. On the one hand, I want to applaud their optimism. But I'm too stunned by the cluelessness. . .
>>
>> Bill.
>>
>
> This avoids (by way of a tough administrative choice) a whole class of
> problems that the Happy Eyeballs draft aims to solve.

Not at all. Most of the protocol used IP telephony and IP
videoconferencing is not TCP or more complex than happy-eyeball can
resolve it.
Best Regards,
Janos


ignatios at cs

Mar 4, 2011, 2:50 AM

Post #15 of 16 (2305 views)
Permalink
Re: Curious choices made by Cisco/Tandberg [In reply to]

On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 10:35:56AM -0500, Bill Owens wrote:

> IPv4: IP version 4 is supported.
> IPv6: IP version 6 is supported. The IPv4 settings (IP Address, IP Subnet Mask and Gateway) will be disabled.

That's similar for SNOM telephones. If you want to configure IPv6, the
first step is to disable DHCP/IPv4.

At least in the current firmware versions, they claim they don't block
IPv6 on the "through" port any longer like the version I tested a year
ago. (Well, at least they claim that; I didn't test yet.)

(Actually: they did not properly bridge, and the multicasts needed for
NDP and router advertizements didn't go through.)

Regards,
-is


mohacsi at niif

Mar 4, 2011, 2:50 AM

Post #16 of 16 (2315 views)
Permalink
Re: Curious choices made by Cisco/Tandberg [In reply to]

On Thu, 3 Mar 2011, Marc Blanchet wrote:

> Le 11-03-03 11:38, Hannigan, Martin a écrit :
>>>> ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that's right, you can have IPv6, but only if you're willing to
>>>> forego
>>>> IPv4. On the one hand, I want to applaud their optimism. But I'm too
>>>> stunned
>>>> by the cluelessness. . .
>>>
>>> Almost the same at Polycom. Your system can registered either via IPv4
>>> or via IPv6. Exclusive OR!
>>>
>>
>> I wouldn't be too fast to assume that this is lack of clue. I would guess
>> that it's a processor limit = cost. Why would you need to dual stack your
>> phone regardless?
>>
>
> - another phone vendor also does either v4 or v6.
> - we have helped phone manufacturers and PBX for porting to IPv6.
> - the main reason for the exclusive OR was simplicity for end users: as plug
> and play as possible, simpler scenarios (don't need to tackle complex
> IPv4-IPv6 scenarios), given the fact that the typical deployment scenario is
> the phone only talks to the PBX and using a single IP is what is needed.
> - not related to processor or memory constraints.
> - I'm not trying to excuse anyone, because they shall be at the end really
> support dual-stack, but I'm giving some context.


In real environment tou might expect, that some end point will be IPv4
only, dual-stacked, IPv6-only. For communication between IPv4 only and IPv6
only UA the signaling can be done with dual-stack SIP proxy, but there is
a need for a rtp proxy media gateway - a kind of protocol
translator. A dual-stacked UA should be able to communicate IPv4 only
only and IPv6 only devices.
For simplicity the user should just register its end point to gatekeeper
or SIP registrar with both IPv4 and IPv6 address. The user just
specifying the server (gatekeeper/ SIP proxy) via DNS name or via DHCP. The
registrar should associate the SIP URI both IPv4 and IPv6 address (and
ports) - dual SDR.
Then in SIP INVITE the client automatically select based on the collected
information form SIP proxy, initiate the connection over IPv4 or over IPv6
to the remote UA or proxy.
Alternatively the ICE protocol can negotiate the common protocol version
and global addresses (in case of IPv4 NAT) to be used.
The most elegant solution would be to use a fairly recent SIP Outbound
standard: setup more than one SDP session (one for IPv4, one for IPv6,
and probably sam fall-back sessions), and use only one for RTP stream and
switch to other session in case of failure.

Clearly for IP telephony and IP videoconferencing the next steps toward
IPv6 is a dual stack operation (dual registration in the SIP registrar,
and proper selection between IPv4 and IPv6 at the UA level or in ICE
protocol). IPv6 only SIP operation is only useful for green-field or
isolated IPv6 networks.

For H.323 it is much more complex....
I doubt H.323 endpoints ever correctly support IPv6.


>
> Regards, Marc.
>
>> Best,
>>
>> -M<
>
>
> --
> =========
> IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca
> Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca
> DTN Implementation: http://postellation.viagenie.ca
> NAT64-DNS64 Opensource: http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
>
>

nsp ipv6 RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.