IPv6 and Win98

[PROBLEMCHYLD]

I have both the compiled version and the sources for v1.4. As expected, the compiled version was built for NT systems (the inf says $WINDOWS NT$).

Me too. From the looks of it, it seems its missing a couple functions in NTDLL.DLL.

1. The NSLOOKUP.EXE is linked to missing export NTDLL.DLL:sscanf

2. The WSHIP6.DLL is linked to missing export NTDLL.DLL:strlen

[dencorso]

ntdll.dll is userland's direct bridge into the NT kernel. So, missing dependencies to ntdll.dll usually result in major revisions to the code...

[Drugwash]

Both functions are exported by msvcrt.dll (mine is 6.10.9848.0) so simply using the proper settings in the project should compile 9x-compatible files. But that'd be too easy to be true.

Unfortunately, there's no VC6 project (.dsp + .dsw) inside the package - only makefiles for commandline compilation, which I never used before. And they used Windows NT DDK, while for 9x we would need Windows 98 DDK (or 95 DDK if we plan on Win95 compatibility).

[rloew]

I have both the compiled version and the sources for v1.4. As expected, the compiled version was built for NT systems (the inf says $WINDOWS NT$).

Me too. From the looks of it, it seems its missing a couple functions in NTDLL.DLL.

1. The NSLOOKUP.EXE is linked to missing export NTDLL.DLL:sscanf

2. The WSHIP6.DLL is linked to missing export NTDLL.DLL:strlen

If these two exports are the only problem then my DLLHOOK Program can remap them.

[Drugwash]

That's not certain. Other issues may arise during operation. Recompiling under Win95/98 DDK should offer a certain degree of certainty, besides the ability to fix bugs and/or add features.

I might give it a try, someday, but no promises - installing the 98DDK on top of an already overwhelmed system with scarse free space might break it.

[cyberformer]

I first want to highly commend you, Drugwash---for keeping this "exceedingly most important" topic alive--and,

for delving into a possible solution!

In another thread, you wrote--"Routers, even a few years old, can handle IPv6 just fine"----but I still ponder the following:

Whilst what you said above is true, and considering I've never used a router, and therefore could be slightly or considerably

confused----having always thought that the PC must also make use of a modem as well the router?

For instance, three years ago, my Bellsouth DSL package came with that typical black modem most people should be familiar with----and I do not think a router that is IPv6 capable----could work without a seperate modem---that has to have 9x drivers.

Unless the modem provided with my package is also a router---but I think it's just a modem; does anyone know?

Still, if the service provider goes all IPv6---and issues new modems to it's customers that provide IPv6, yet the drivers to use it, only work on windows 7 and 8 only for instance, whilst not providing any drivers for 9x,

how will having an IPv6 router be useful---if one also needs to have a modem with 9x drivers to be used in conjunction with the router? Am I very confused, or am I hitting upon another sad possibility? I've really do not know.

Hope this post is not in the wrong area!

Edited November 27, 2011 by cyberformer

[rloew]

I first want to highly commend you, Drugwash---for keeping this "exceedingly most important" topic alive--and,

for delving into a possible solution!

In another thread, you wrote--"Routers, even a few years old, can handle IPv6 just fine"----but I still ponder the following:

Whilst what you said above is true, and considering I've never used a router, and therefore could be slightly or considerably

confused----having always thought that the PC must also make use of a modem as well the router?

For instance, three years ago, my Bellsouth DSL package came with that typical black modem most people should be familiar with----and I do not think a router that is IPv6 capable----could work without a seperate modem---that has to have 9x drivers.

Unless the modem provided with my package is also a router---but I think it's just a modem; does anyone know?

Still, if the service provider goes all IPv6---and issues new modems to it's customers that provide IPv6, yet the drivers to use it, only work on windows 7 and 8 only for instance, whilst not providing any drivers for 9x,

how will having an IPv6 router be useful---if one also needs to have a modem with 9x drivers to be used in conjunction with the router? Am I very confused, or am I hitting upon another sad possibility? I've really do not know.

Hope this post is not in the wrong area!

Modems don't normally care about Internet protocols. They deal with the underlying Ethernet Packets. A smart Router could translate transparently between IPv4 and IPv6 using advanced NAT Technology. If so, no new drivers would be needed as all communications between the Computer and the Router could be done in IPv4. URL Parsing may need to be Patched to handle numerical IPv6 Addresses.

[Drugwash]

Cable modem provided by ISP would need a driver only when connection with the computer would be through USB (other connections such as COM, LPT, 1394 would be highly unlikely for such device type). In that case, no router could be connected, since the router must be placed between cable modem and computer. Otherwise, ethernet traffic would be normal, using IPv4, as mentioned above.

A huge issue would be for users that currently have USB GPRS modems directly connected to 9x machines, as unique Internet access. Although I highly doubt anyone ever released 9x drivers for such devices. I would be personally interested myself in such device/driver, since my current connection is through a GPRS modem and I am forced to use an XP machine as a router (since no Linux would accept the drivers provided with the device).

We're still to see how the IPv6 implementation will be done effectively, before talking about configurations... although in that case it might already be too late for some of us.

Here's a supposedly classic network configuration using a cable modem, a router and optionally, a switch:

[TmEE]

In my case, the cable modem and router are a single device. when the time comes I will probably have to dig out my WRT and see if there;s some nice DD-WRT version on it to do some NAT business for me, unless cable modem+router can do it itself

[dw2108]

It seems, Max Speed has a great deal of info on this issue. Look at the IPv6 test and resources page. It looks like many of the newer browsers (and even IE 5) can sniff the v6 domains by default once IPv6 can be recognized by the OS and the ISP.

http://www.mdgx.com/modem.htm

Dave

Edited December 2, 2011 by dw2108

[cyberformer]

In the Windows Me Wiki, it says that:

..." TCP/IP Stack: Windows Me includes the Windows 2000 networking stack and architecture"....

And if the above is really true, then is there some "remote possibility" that the IPv6 preview stack designed for Win2k,

could possibly be ported to Me?

Just wondering for some time now......

and I can't let it rest,

till I know for sure-----!

[CharlotteTheHarlot]

Here's a supposedly classic network configuration using a cable modem, a router and optionally, a switch:

Interesting that they also apparently use the TV on the cable modem.

I can't remember a time here (USA) that I ever saw that for either digital or analog TV's, and we've had this kind of arrangement for somewhere between 10 and 15 years.

For the past 5 years since they began digital telephone (to compete with the old baby bell telcos) we've put the telephone into the cable modem RJ11 jack, and of course the router (or computer directly) has always hung off the ethernet jack.

I'm thinking that they may have used the cable modem to allow two-way communication for something like pay-per-view maybe. Over here, at first we had a tuner/converter box for that purpose and it had a normal phone line jacked into it. Then later when the system went digital we used a newer addressable box with no phone line attached. Nowadays it is a single DVR unit with everything combined and all comm is on the single cable coax.

So what we do now is split the cable-in feed and send one branch straight to the cable modem (telephone + router), the other branch straight to the DVR's which each feed a TV (also to some TV's without DVR's). The good thing about this arrangement is that when you reboot the cable modem, no TV's are affected.

EDIT: RJ11 (or whatever they call it) instead of RS232!

Edited December 21, 2011 by CharlotteTheHarlot

[Drugwash]

Yeah, I might've mixed up a few concepts when drawing that schematic. A simple, basic cable modem has no truck with the TV - that one gets connected before the cable modem. In newer configurations, there are the DVRs as you said above, equipped with an RJ-45 socket for Ethernet traffic and analog + digital video output. Not sure about the phone socket. The schematic above would fit the latter configuration.

[UltimateSilence]

I'm not sure if this is relevant to the subject (it might help), but a Google search result led me to this...

"I have windows 95 and windows 98 working successfully with IPv6, however, it is only the browser with a proxy server that works on IPv6. I am using squid as both a transparent and a non-transparent proxy server. The proxy server needs to be dual stack."

[CharlotteTheHarlot]

Yeah, I might've mixed up a few concepts when drawing that schematic. A simple, basic cable modem has no truck with the TV - that one gets connected before the cable modem. In newer configurations, there are the DVRs as you said above, equipped with an RJ-45 socket for Ethernet traffic and analog + digital video output. Not sure about the phone socket. The schematic above would fit the latter configuration.

And of course I meant RJ11 or whatever they call it (not RS232 LOL!) in that previous post. It is the old normal POTS phone jack for telephones.