IPv6 for the Linksys WRT54G 232
AndersBrownworth writes "Earthlink Research and Development has released a firmware load for the Linksys WRT54G wireless access point that supports end-to-end IPv6. They suggest features such as extremely large address space, stateless autoconfiguration and low cost restoration of end-to-end addressability will revolutionize IP communications. It would be interesting if releases like this significantly boost the IPv6 take-up rate but as far as I know, Earthlink doesn't supply end-to-end IPv6 yet."
WRT54G is an awesome piece of hardware (Score:5, Informative)
I mean, I telnet into mine right now and review settings.. Which I love.
There is a list of firmware at wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WRT54G [wikipedia.org]
Re:WRT54G is an awesome piece of hardware (Score:4, Funny)
Re:WRT54G is an awesome piece of hardware (Score:5, Funny)
"just about anything" is right! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:WRT54G is an awesome piece of hardware (Score:3, Funny)
Re:WRT54G is an awesome piece of hardware (Score:2)
How does this increase adoption rate? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How does this increase adoption rate? (Score:2)
Re:How does this increase adoption rate? (Score:3)
Re:How does this increase adoption rate? (Score:2)
Re:How does this increase adoption rate? (Score:2)
Re:How does this increase adoption rate? (Score:2)
Re:How does this increase adoption rate? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How does this increase adoption rate? (Score:2)
Accually, yes it does. Walking through 8 or 16 bits of address space is not really that much work for a worm. Walking 64 bits of address space to find 50 computers - well, thats a fair bit more.
Thing about it this way - You're on an ethernet network, and you need to walk through all of the MAC address space to find a computer. IPv6 is roughly the same.
Granted, its security by
Re:How does this increase adoption rate? (Score:2)
Re:How does this increase adoption rate? (Score:2)
Suppose they listen for broadcasts, and attack addresses they hear from?
Suppose they assume that a PC which has an Intel NIC in it, is in an organization that likely has more Intel NICs in it, and concentrates it's energies searching for other PC's in that 40 bit space?
Suppose the worm simply accepts the slow build-up of hosts; rathe
Re:How does this increase adoption rate? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How does this increase adoption rate? (Score:2)
yeah sure they work out of the box but only for people who thing the internet is the interweb and they make support a nightmare
there are methods such as stun for getting around some of theese issues but they are pretty nasty for app coders and therefore not widely adopted.
Re:How does this increase adoption rate? (Score:2)
you have to teach the user what nat and port forwards are and try to help them use a router control interface that you have never seen!
Does anyone support IPV6? (Score:4, Funny)
1) Their ISP supports it
2) The Windoze protocol stack uses it.
I know that Linux on my machine has an IPV6 stack available, but do any commercial ISPs deliver connectivity? It isn't exactly something they put in their TV ads.
MOD PARENT UP +5 Slashbot (Score:3, Funny)
Re:MOD PARENT UP +5 Slashbot (Score:4, Funny)
If I'm gonna give up some of my mod points,
the poster better be a hookerbot with a bag of cheetos.
Re:Does anyone support IPV6? (Score:3, Informative)
As for ISPs, I've only actually seen one U.S. backbone company that actually claims to support IPv6, NTT (which has a lot of experience from Japan--IPv6 rollout in other countries with less IPv4 space/more mobile devices is farther along). Before end user ISPs can provide IPv6, we'll need the big backbone companies to provide IPv6 to their cu
Re:Does anyone support IPV6? (Score:4, Interesting)
Windows supports IPv6 already, although not perfectly.
The ThreeDegrees P2P app automatically enables and configures IPv6 when you install it, and all its traffic goes over IPv6. It turned out not to be a killer app, but imagine if something like Kazaa or Skype decided to enable IPv6 on everyone's computer.
Re:Does anyone support IPV6? (Score:2)
unfortunately unlike with 6to4 teredo isn't yet an approved standard and does not have in place the relays needed to interact with the rest of the ipv6 internet so its only really usefull for connecting between systems on ipv4 right now even though it uses the ipv6 apis
for ipv6 to really take off imo
Re:Does anyone support IPV6? (Score:2)
Re:Does anyone support IPV6? (Score:4, Informative)
On the other hand, most pppd daemons in solaris,freebsd and linux support ipv6. Windows will support ipv6 ppp in longhorn.
Re:Does anyone support IPV6? (Score:3, Informative)
Great! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Great! (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't forget that you are overlapping with public space if you use all of "172.x". Private space in the Class B range is only 172.16.0.0/12, or 172.16.0.0 - 172.13.255.255 (which is 1048576 IPs).
Re:Great! (Score:2, Funny)
No, I mean the range starts at 172.16.0.0, goes up to 255.255.255.255, wraps around to 0.0.0.0, and continues to 172.13.255.255.
(Thanks)
Wow. (Score:4, Informative)
ipkg install kernel-ipv6
modprobe ipv6
ip tunnel add
this isn't news
Re:Wow. (Score:3, Interesting)
Call themselves a site for geeks?
Re:Wow. (Score:2)
It's just a frikkin' kernel recompile. Why does this warrant a whole article.
I just upgraded my DG834GT to IPV6.. not that I'd call it that.. the IPV6 bit took, what, 3 seconds? Woot. I'd better email slashdot right away!
They do if you ask for it... (Score:4, Interesting)
IPv6 incremental support won't help (Score:5, Insightful)
The best description I know about The Problem comes from Dan Bernstein, The IPv6 mess [cr.yp.to].
The IPv6 designers don't have a transition plan. They've taken some helpful steps, but they typically declare success (``IPv6 support'') when the real problem---making public IPv6 addresses work just as well as public IPv4 addresses---still hasn't been solved.
Re:IPv6 incremental support won't help (Score:4, Insightful)
However, a lot of what he says is quite out of date at this point. Furthermore, he complains that he's willing to hack but wants to be able to autoconfigure his hosts, and the implication is that he would hack if only he were told what to hack on, which frankly doesn't sound like the Dan we've all grown to know and love in the DNS world. If he really wants to fix these problems, the best way to show what the big bad people at IETF are doing wrong is to demonstrate it with working code.
The fact is that right now having an IPv6 address doesn't get you a whole lot of goodness in the U.S., and so we probably will be the last to adopt it if everybody here maintains your attitude.
IPv6 deployment in Asia is a reality, and to a lesser extent this is true in Europe as well. Anywhere where the IP infrastructure is being expanded is an easy place to deploy IPv6. 6to4 gateways are doable, just as are NATs. So you will see widespread deployment of IPv6 in Asia in the relatively near term.
As far as the U.S. and Europe go, slashdotters are precisely the people who should be thinking about trying to use IPv6 as soon as possible - as geeks, we are the early adopters, and as we try out the technology and try to use it, the world will catch up with us. The more we poo-poo it and don't try to actually deploy it, the longer it's going to take to address the concerns that Dan raises, and, I think, the more it's going to cost us in the long run.
One last thing: IPv4 link local addressing is fairly badly broken. If you want to be able to do link local addressing, it works a lot better in V6-land. This is largely an accident - nobody thought to cripple it until it was too late. But it's still true that you do get some value from deploying IPv6, even if only within your own home. If you use Rendesvous/Bonjour, you're probably already using IPv6 and just don't know it yet.
Re:IPv6 incremental support won't help (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with Dan in these two:
I post from Europe, and we've been enticed and encouraged to adopt IPv6 for years. However, it remains exotic for most techies and almost completely unknown to normal users. Why? Because IPv4 already won. Even if I decide to embrace IPv6 myself, I can't recommend it to paying clients who hire me to help them avoid dumb mistakes. The adoption of a new technology to do the job of an existing and deployed old technology that seems to work OK, and a real expense to get some unknown benefit with no timeframe will look like a dumb mistake to many of them. And I can't change their short-term way of thinking.
Re:IPv6 incremental support won't help (Score:2)
Bernsteins article is actually full of misconceptions.
Well, since China, India, and Japan are going IPv6 (Score:2, Interesting)
You either surf the wave or it crashes over you.
Re:Well, since China, India, and Japan are going I (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well, since China, India, and Japan are going I (Score:2, Insightful)
Doesn't matter. We already converted over in science, in manufacturing, and in retail.
Why do you think it's 8.5 ounces when you buy a carton? It's actually a metric measurement - we just pretend it isn't for the consumer.
Why IPv6 is needed (Score:5, Insightful)
NAT helps somewhat, but if you're using NAT your computer can't receive incoming connections. That's a problem for servers, for peer-to-peer networking, for games, and for VoIP. Home users can usually work around this with their firewall configuration, but businesses usually can't (one important reason being that only one computer behind the firewall can receive connections this way, not multiple). And, as someone pointed out in the last IPv6-related thread, merging the networks of two corporations is a nightmare - they both use the same IP addresses.
There are theoretically 4 billion IP addresses total. That sounds like a lot, but an IP address isn't just a number which can be assigned individually; what you do is hand out big consecutive blocks of them, so that routers can say things like "for 123.231.*.*, send packets in this direction". The shortage of IP addresses has introduced lots of special cases, so that internet routers need tons of memory and processing power to figure out the mess.
Finally, switching to IPv6 cuts off one of the major ways worms propagate. The Sapphire worm, for example, worked by picking a random IP address and trying to infect it, repeating for a whole bunch of IPs, and it was able to double every 7 seconds. That works because the odds of finding a computer (not necessarily a vulnerable computer) is about 10%. With IPv6, that changes to 10^-28% - instead of doubling the number of infected computers every 7 seconds, it would've scanned for a few years, never find a single computer, and get disinfected.
Re:Why IPv6 is needed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why IPv6 is needed (Score:2)
i'm not sure how the gp got the figure of 10^-28% but the figure is still so small that a worm could hit random addresses for a very very long time before having a reasonable
Re:Why IPv6 is needed (Score:2)
An IPv4 address is 4 bytes (32 bits), an IPv6 address is 16 bytes (128 bits). If about 10% of IPv4 addresses are used currently (which is just an order-of-magnitude estimate), then there are 4x10^8 addresses in use now. There are 2^128=3x10^38 IP addresses in use now, so
Re:Why IPv6 is needed (Score:2)
all addresses on the ipv6 internet currently are in one of 3
2001::/16 production ipv6 internet
2002::/16 6to4 stateless ipv6 over ipv4
3FFE::/16 6bone experimental ipv6
Re:Why IPv6 is needed (Score:2)
Re:Why IPv6 is needed (Score:2)
The fact is a complete switch to ipv6 WILL to all practical perposes make tradidional net-scanning worms of this type
While that would be a temporary boon, I suspect worms writers will just quickly adapt and find other ways to spread worms quickly. Scan the local subnet, look at traffic received/sent by the host and send the payload to those subnets, look through ARP tables, etc. There's probbably even more clever ways to find new hosts I'm not even aware of. Security through obscurity only makes life
Re:Why IPv6 is needed (Score:2)
Re:Why IPv6 is needed (Score:2)
Re:Why IPv6 is needed (Score:2)
Yes, NAT can break some application protocols such as H.323 (among others), and does require a NAT/PAT device, ideally with some sort of packet filtering of stateful firewalling ability, but it does provide some basic security.
With end to end publically addressable space being used, the ability to portscan for exploits not only extends from ISP access network to ISP access network, but also in to what should be private LANs. LANs in your home and your place of work.
If people con
Re:Why IPv6 is needed (Score:2)
frankly i've always belived that firewalls are a kludge anyway the whole point of the internet is to be a network of computers accross the world. If your app can't live securely in that environment then imo it shouldn't be using ip in the first place.
Re:Why IPv6 is needed (Score:2)
They already do filter access to/from existing addresses, and in fact the rules to do the filtering are no different at all on most firewalls. Not many people use NAT without filtering.
Re:Why IPv6 is needed (Score:2)
I installed a new cable modem the other day and to configure it I had to connect it directly to the computer. ZoneAlarm (thank God I had it) immediately went ballistic about the number of incoming attacks. I'm not running any servers, and I hope I'm reasonably current on the patches, but God only knows what program that I'm running has a backdoor port open. I was actually queasy.
As soon as the thing was configured I re-rigged it t
Re:Why IPv6 is needed (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF? See if you can make something out of the following two lines:
block in from any to any
pass out from any to any keep state
NAT for IPv6 is the most stupid thing I've seen today.
Re:Of course, NAT greater than Firewall, (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why IPv6 is needed (Score:3, Insightful)
NAT stands for ``Network Address Translation'' not ``Stateful Firewall.'' I will never understand why people confuse these things so easily.
Re:Why IPv6 is needed (Score:2)
Personnally I don't run any firewalls in my behind-a-router home network. Sure it may allow trojans and viruses to "call home", but apart from that what possible attacks am I vulnerable to?
Re:Why IPv6 is needed (Score:2)
No, actually it is not good enough because nat doesn't actually drop any packets, it just rewrites some fields in the packet headers. That's why practically every firewall sold today does filtering in addition to NAT. Taking away the NAT and leaving the firewall will not degrade security one bit.
MOD PARENT UP! (Score:3, Insightful)
NAT stands for ``Network Address Translation'' not ``Stateful Firewall.'' I will never understand why people confuse these things so easily.
You, sir, have hit the nail on the head.
What people like about NAT boxes from a security perspective is that they must implement a particular sort of stateful firewalling in order to do their job. But a very simple stateful firewall accomplishes *exactly* the same security task without the limitations of NAT.
Re:Why IPv6 is needed (Score:3, Insightful)
The confusion is that a lot of people think NAT is what is causing their network to be secure. It is not. The firewall is. You can take away the NAT and leave the firewall and your network will be just as secure.
Re:Why IPv6 is needed (Score:2)
Not true. You can forward ports from your NAT box to any computer behind it. You can have port 80 go to your
Re:Why IPv6 is needed (Score:4, Insightful)
Firstly, most VoIP architectures currently look to SIP proxies for segmentation between the operator's network and the user agent or equipment. A SIP proxy is basically just an application-layer gateway. This type of software is being incorporated in to many of the forthcoming customer premises equipment. Therefore, if your application layer gateway is at the edge of your network, proxying incoming and outgoing SIP requests, what does having end-to-end IPv6 buy you?
Secondly, despite evidence of a shortage of IPv4 addresses, there is some confusion over what this really means. There is a shortage of AVAILABLE IPv4 addresses. This is distinctly different from having a shortage of UNALLOCATED IPv4 addresses. Basically, many telcos, ISPs and large institutions are sitting on some very large blocks of address space. This address space was handed out readily in the 1990s because demand (i.e the dotcom boom) wasn't anticipated.
Due to certain organisations receiving such large allocations, there was little or no control over how this resource was allocated to their networks. The result of this is highly wasteful allocation, some still using classful addressing (so summarising subnets on classful boundaries such as 255.255.255.0 or 255.255.0.0,
Many of these places could actually go back over their allocated address ranges and re-claim huge chunks. All it requires is a motivation to do so and the time and resource to plan and execute it. At the moment, the motivation is rarely there and organisations would generally prioiritise such activity at the bottom of a long list of things to do.
The problem arises when they are required to demonstrate to their regional registrar that they have sensibly used their current allocations in order to obtain new blocks of unassigned space. Generally, this is when you will hear the cries of "Oh no, the Internet is running low on available IPv4 space! Panic!".
Finally, your worm theory is just wrong. Yes, it decreases the probability of hitting an exploitable host, but it increases the depth to which the worm can scan. What I mean by this is that the worm will be able to scan in to people's private networks if NAT and firewalling are not used. If rules are not explicitly put in place to protect your home IPv6 LAN, then worms will be able to scan all hosts from the outside.
How many people put up a NAT/PAT box or a firewall, and then think they're perfectly safe from the outside? Most networks conform to the Twinkie theory -- crunchie on the outside and soft and squidgy in the middle. Chances are that an IPv6 home lan would be totally unprotected once on the inside. If this inside is exposed to the Internet then the chances of remote exploitation increase dramatically in my opinion.
It is needed.... (Score:2)
Also, let me add that the IPv4 blocks are a lot smaller today. We don't give out 4 million or ~250 addresses at a time, we give out a small block here and there (CIDR). Plus, since the rest of the world is going to move to IPv6 we can reclaim those billions of Asian addresses.
Just a thought...
Re:It is needed.... (Score:2)
Re:Why IPv6 is needed (Score:2)
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05471.pdf [gao.gov]
"As a region, Asia controls only about 9 percent of the allocated IPv4 addresses, and yet has more than half of the world's population."
Re:Why IPv6 is needed (Score:2)
That's a limitation of consumer routers, using the DMZ feature. You can map individual ports to different places on just about any hardware. And, I can't see much of a reason to map all incoming ports to a DMZ, over a few selected ports.
And, as someone pointed out in the last IPv6-related thread, merging the networks of two corporations is a nightmare - they both use the same IP addresses
Re:Why IPv6 is needed (Score:2)
With IPv6, ISP's will route /48's to any customer, even lowly ppp dialup users. A /48 is 2^80 (1208925819614629174706176) IPs.
Good luck!
Re:Why IPv6 is needed (Score:2)
Well, not everyone's needs consist of running BitTorrent Skype on their little home network. When you have a bunch of servers that do a lot of talking with the outside world, have VPNs with 40 other organizations and need globally unique addresses, or if you jus
Re:Why IPv6 is needed (Score:3, Interesting)
Not quite true (well, true, but misleading). IP addresses were designed to be handed out hierarchically, which made routers very simple. Now, IP addresses are handed out in blocks of 256, in a relatively arbitrary way, making the routing tables much larger than they should be. With IPv6, we will have enough IP addresses to assign them hierarchically again, and still have a few million per person.
Now this is j
IPv6 - solution without a problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not a chicken-and-egg thing, where everyone would do it if there were only the infrastructure, but there's no infrastructure because no one's doing it yet. At least, it doesn't seem that way to me.
IPv6 came about when the Internet exploded in the early 90's. Folks looked at the address space and said "Hey, we're running out of room!"
The solution in IPv6 was to use 128-bit addresses instead of 32-bit ones, and to design the next gen of protocols using the lessons learned from the previous one. TCP/IPv4 was designed in an era when security was not in as much focus as it is now.
It seems like about two minutes after IPv6 began to be developed, the world discovered NAT and firewalls. We'd always had routers with private networks, but NAT made it possible for mortals to set up. A whole company with thousands or millions of IP addresses can be hidden behind a very small set of IPv4 addresses.
That solution has worked so well that few feel the need to use IPv6.
I wonder what will happen to force the issue?
Re:IPv6 - solution without a problem? (Score:2)
Let me guess - you're American/Canadian. You don't get "cellphones" or mobiles as we call them. You don't think about the Chinese/Indian market. IPv6 is big. If you guys aren't interested, then you'll lose out. Get involved now - get a start on the competition.
Re:IPv6 - solution without a problem? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:IPv6 - solution without a problem? (Score:2)
There's also security. Unless I've specifically mapped an incoming port, you won't see my internal machines. At all. IPv6 potentially allows outside traffic to see my internal machines, and my firewall now has to monitor an address block rather than a single address.
What I'd like to see is something where the last ip grouping is is not addressable past your router - like NAT. But, fo
Re:IPv6 - solution without a problem? (Score:3, Informative)
IPv6 is often simplified to one feature: increased address space. Then the matter with NAT is brought up, which is not a very good solution for reasons mentioned numerous times elsewhere in these comments. Here are some more features of it to consider:
- IPv4 has optional support for end-to-end encryption via IPSec. In IPv6 it's mandatory.
- IPv6 doesn't require manual configuration or DHCP.
- IPv6 support QoS by router.
- IPv6 routers doesn't fragment packets like i
Re:IPv6 - solution without a problem? (Score:2)
Breaking the cycle (Score:3, Interesting)
This could be useful for breaking the cycle that prevents adoption of IPv6. ISPs don't provide service because there isn't enough user demand. Users don't demand it in part because a lot of software would break. And software developers don't provide IPv6 support because their ISP doesn't support IPv6. Yes, you can configure tunneling software but if you are behind a NATing and Firewalling router, there are likely to be some problems and by the time you are done configuring it, you don't have time to work on the software; this project actually replaces a commonly used router with one that enables IPv6 rather than getting in the way. And likewise, most people can't really switch to IPv6 only until almost everyone supports IPv6. So, this could help provide critical mass.
The web page is pretty vague about what is actually going on under the hood. Presumably this distribution creates a tunnel to some IPv6 relay router but what gateway or tunneling protocol is used is not specified.
all very well but what is IPv6? (Score:2)
what is it?
what is the benefit to the average user like me?
IPv6 For Beginners, A Guide (Score:3, Insightful)
IPv6 is an attempt to re-engineer the IP protocol to solve a number of problems, but exactly how it does so has shifted a few times over the course of time. Here is a summary of what it does, why it matters, and what it means to the newcommer:
What about 6to4 ? (Score:2)
I like my WRAP (Score:3, Informative)
I find a WRT54G extremely cumbersome to use without a low level access port and the danger of wrecking the device by uploading a wrong firmware.
With the WRAP, I can prepare "firmware" images on an extra computer, I can even test-boot them in a virtual machine and then transfer them straight to a CF card knowing that there is no way the device will ever get inoperable due to a bad OS image (except flashing a wrong BIOS, which sits in a separate area outside of any compact flash card).
Speaking of BIOS, there even is a BIOS update [pcengines.ch] for WRAP with included Etherboot to boot an OS over the net, yay!
Re:I like my WRAP (Score:2)
After some googling I figure that's for people who like to get their hands dirty with soldering and hacking hardware instead of software, i.e. not for me. But thanks.
Re:I like my WRAP (Score:2)
A funny thing on OS X (Score:2)
I haven't really dove into
Finally! (Score:2)
I'd bet that what they're doing is setting up 6to4 and advertising the 6to4 prefix to the inside LAN. Makes perfect sense.
They could also be implementing NATPT and a DNS proxy, but that would be, IMHO, more trouble than it's worth (it presumes that all of your applications are IPv6 aware and that you can't, for some reason, set up IPv4+NAT). Much more likely that they're doing traditional NAT for IPv4, and doing IPv6 in parallel with 6to4.
Alas, I got
6to4 anycast router (Score:4, Interesting)
Just set up an IPv6 tunnel (Linux SIT tunnels support this natively), and point it to 192.88.99.1 to send to non-6to4 addresses. Other 6to4 destinations will be auto-tunnelled with IPv6-over-IPv4, and any IPv6 packets sent to you will also be automatically routed over IPv6-over-IPv4 by the Internet. Therefore, there's no need to set up a tunnel with a third party if you're using 6to4.
Fedora Core supports 6to4 more or less out-of-the-box. All you need to do are two things: /etc/sysconfig/network (why does Slashdot split the lines?):
2. Add these lines to the1. Add these lines to
Is NAT so bad? (Score:2)
Re:kewl! (Score:2)
Could be, at least at first, but all it will take is on or two ISPs to offer virtually unlimited IPv6 addresses and the trend will change.
Re:kewl! (Score:2)
Re:kewl! (Score:2)
A stateful firewall on the router (not too uncommon) that, by default only allows outgoing connections would do the trick. Any additional functions could easily be requested for a single IP or a range of IPs using a web-based GUI.
Re:Earthlink sucks (Score:2)
6to4 tunnel brokers? WTF?
There is *one* 6to4 tunnel endpoint (192.88.99.1), which always goes to the nearest gateway wherever you are. 6to4 is something you setup *yourself* not through brokers.. it gives you (IIRC) 16 million addressable IPV6 locations per fixed IPV4 address (the 2002:xxxx:xxxx range).
A tunnel broker is something different. They allocate a 'real' IPV6 block and route it towards your router, unrelated t
Re:Earthlink sucks (Score:2)
Re:Earthlink sucks (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A few assorted questions & stuff (Score:2)
and there is 6to4 but that really needs the machine doing it to have a public ip or possiblly a router dmz setting (basically it needs to be able to get 6to4 packets which are neither tcp nor udp from the 6to4 relays serving the hosts you are communicating with).
Re:A few assorted questions & stuff (Score:2)
(Here is a list [wikipedia.org] of some firmwares)
Re:good thing ? (Score:2)
Re:good thing ? (Score:2)
Nothing has changed and I've removed the level of obfuscation introduced through NAT. Wrap this in some cute GUI and viola! Done. If mom and dad can handle IPv4 they can handle IPv6.
Re:Replacing NAT with IPv6 (Score:2)
basically heres the way it works
your system has an ipv6 default gateway of 2002:c058:6301::
this is a 6to4 address so packets routed to it get wrapped in a 6to4 packet and sent to 192.88.99.1
this is an anycast address which takes the packet to a 6to4 relay router that will take it onto the ipv6 network (mostly theese seem to be run by research organisations right now but as 6to4 grows in popularity isps will find thems