Sollutions? IPv6, and legacy applications.

[awkduck]

What are your thoughts on IPv6? Is it coming? Are we still years away? Is IPv4 safe, for a long time?

I know that a Win9x IPv6 Winsock is possible, since Trumpet v5 exists. But that doesn't help legacy applications, that expect IPv4 addresses.

Programs like DC++ (or the many hub applications) are not likely to be rewritten for Win9x, with support for IPv6. Maybe IRC is a better example.

It would be completely up to volunteers, to port (if the code was available) IPv6 into older applications; or port newer applications back to Win9x (or create fresh).

Instead of all that, could a wrapper exist? A kinda local database of real IPv6 to fake IPv4 addresses

For example, a firewall can detect every application's attempt to communicate in/out. While IPv4 addresses may be in short supply, for the world, it is unlikely that you will ever connect to enough IPv6 addresses to exhaust local faux IPv4 addresses. So, a firewall like application could provide a kind of transparent translation/proxy, for IPv6 >< Ipv4.

Even if you where using some bittorrent application, browsing whatever websites your legacy machine could still load, BBSing, and ton of other activities, you'd probably never exhaust fake IPv4 addresses. So "maybe" it would just be a matter of implementing an IPv6 Winsock, and an address interception application (translation might need to be optional, per application, since retro programmers may one day be implementing IPv6 retro software)?

Does this make sense? Is it even something to be concerned about? Will ISPs continue to work with both IPv4 and IPv6, as they are now? I've heard StarLink is IPv6 only.

Anyway, thanks for reading.

[ozjd]

It's interesting that I appear here right now (found this organically, created an account to reply).

One of my hobbies that's gone on for far too long is to make MSN Chat (IRCX) work like it did in the 1990s. There's been many projects in various languages and I've done both server and client side stuff.
Just recently, I started down the track of trying to get the MSN Chat control working in a Rust application. From what I can tell, it seems no-one has made ActiveX controls work inside rust (without using C bindings).

Anyway, I somehow managed to get it working (I must have some idea what I'm doing), and then I thought what can I do to enhance things?
One of the answers was IPv6! It's completely feasible to patch (either a binary file or a in memory) software to work with IPv6. In most cases, you'll want to create an IPv6 socket and set it up as a dual stack socket (supports both IPv4 and IPv6).
I'm not going to lie, it takes a bit of digging (reverse engineering) to find what you're looking for, then a bit more effort to patch each relevant part, but I managed to do it in a few hours.

Here's the relevant issue: https://github.com/realJoshByrnes/msnchat-rs/issues/4 (Attempt to patch in IPv6) with commits showing the changes made.
Is there a particular software you're concerned about?

I just thought more about this, and since it's in the 9x section I should probably add that patching IPv6 on an OS that doesn't support it might be tricker as you'll need a custom network stack or IPv4 over IPv6 tunnel. I believe there was some native support in NT4 and Win2k via an addon.

P.S. Starlink has IPv4.

Edited Saturday at 06:56 PM by ozjd

[awkduck]

1 hour ago, ozjd said:

It's interesting that I appear here right now (found this organically, created an account to reply).

That's funny. This covers about 90% of my account creations, these days.

 

1 hour ago, ozjd said:

One of my hobbies that's gone on for far too long is to make MSN Chat (IRCX) work like it did in the 1990s. There's been many projects in various languages and I've done both server and client side stuff.
Just recently, I started down the track of trying to get the MSN Chat control working in a Rust application. From what I can tell, it seems no-one has made ActiveX controls work inside rust (without using C bindings).

Yeah, I'm sure you just spiced up some fond memories. Congrats, on crossing the Rust threshold. Good to see it being put to good work ;)

1 hour ago, ozjd said:

I'm not going to lie, it takes a bit of digging (reverse engineering) to find what you're looking for, then a bit more effort to patch each relevant part, but I managed to do it in a few hours.

I am capable of patching. Without an overall solution, I could manage where ever I invested the time. Time seems to be the killer, of many projects, lately.

1 hour ago, ozjd said:

Is there a particular software you're concerned about?

The list would be huge. But, were talking about play, not practical. RemoteAdmin (older Win9x ver), Telnet, BBS (likely COM to IP [Telnet] servers), HTTPDs/FTPs, KDX/Hotline, etc. Many things needing both the servant(s) and client(s).

It is just a matter of whim, before you find something (old) you want to try.

1 hour ago, ozjd said:

I just thought more about this, and since it's in the 9x section I should probably add that patching IPv6 on an OS that doesn't support it might be tricker as you'll need a custom network stack or IPv4 over IPv6 tunnel. I believe there was some native support in NT4 and Win2k via an addon.

Peter Tattam's Trumpet Winsock v5, already supports IPv6. But, it was commercial and may have only supported an older version of Winsock. Version 3.0d only supported Winsock 1.1. Here is a link from archive.org, with no security exception required. I don't know if it can still be registered (an email is provided for registration questions). But, it also requires that the machine date be set back (pre-registration) otherwise the shareware time bomb prevents if from loading. It may not work on WinME at all.

Yes. this is the crux of the situation. If one created a new Winsock, then maybe support for legacy applications might be included. Off the top of my head, this wrapper idea was the cheapest/dirtiest fix.

2 hours ago, ozjd said:

P.S. Starlink has IPv4.

Yes, you are right. It seems to be "IPv6 only" only in some locations (Tuvalu).

There isn't much clear indication, if overall IPv6 adoption would end IPv4. It is almost meaningless, if you are using modern software. The transition would cause no real noticeable difference (with most users anyway). Some are of the opinion that IPv4 will be here to stay, anyway. But, I'm not convinced that this is the case. Their argument is that, we are (many of us )already behind shared or fake IPv4 addresses; and why would ISPs give up that level of network access (IPv6 potentially being more direct IP to IP).

My theory, of the practical nature of the thing, is that overall IPv6 adoption would be a good time to implement new legislation(s) about using only secured devices over the Internet. Meaning, that if you are connected, the devices must indicate/authenticate the users "real/legal" identity. IPv6 is certainly capable supporting this, for even multiple devices out of a single household. So, it may be a near mute consideration. Near, because I still see the potential to run legacy devices over such a connection infrastructure. It would likely just depend if that sort of thing was allowed (probably country dependent legislation). I can see the potential argument that insecure devices can allow insecure activity (vulnerabilities). But this is just a theory and, if a viable reality, probably a ways out yet. Its more likely to be seen in China, without a doubt; however, Digital Identity is still voluntary there.

[FranceBB]

Well, more than at an OS level, I was thinking more about this being implemented at the router level. Currently there's NAT64 / DNS64 implemented in routers that is generally used to perform the opposite of what you wanna do (i.e allowing IPV6 clients to access public IPV4 only resources), however I wonder if it could technically be used to map public IPV6 addresses to internal private IPV4 addresses for older clients...

I'm not a networking expert and even though I have an OpenWRT router, I don't really have a public IPV6 address from my ISP, so I can't really test / experiment with it as I'm behind CGNAT (IPV4), but if someone is more experienced and/or wants to test, please shout. This is definitely an interesting topic.

Edited 16 hours ago by FranceBB