# FreeBSD non IPv4 and IPv6 Protocol Question



## hammer185 (Apr 10, 2019)

Can I get directed to where I could read about official if any support of any protocols supported by still currently supported FreeBSD versions other than IPv4 and IPv4?  An example would be I've read although I'm not sure about this that FreeBSD still supports IPX/SPX.  Are there any other networking protocols still supported to setup a small office environment where not dependancy on either IPv4 or IPv6 was a requirement.  Please ask me to clarify if what I asked is confusing at all.


----------



## Hiroo Ono (Apr 11, 2019)

IPX support was dropped in FreeBSD 11 https://www.freebsd.org/releases/11.0R/relnotes.html#network-protocols. I do not know for other protocols, but just looking filenames under /usr/src/sys/net* of stable/12, I wonder if protocols other than IP are supported.


----------



## SirDice (Apr 11, 2019)

hammer185 said:


> Are there any other networking protocols still supported to setup a small office environment where not dependancy on either IPv4 or IPv6 was a requirement.


What is the network used for? Using certain applications pretty much dictates TCP/IP.


----------



## hammer185 (Apr 11, 2019)

It's going to be used to do a lot of stuff that requires IP protocols not be used.


----------



## SirDice (Apr 11, 2019)

Like what? Give us a real example so we have _some_ idea what to suggest. This is just too vague.


----------



## hammer185 (Apr 12, 2019)

For right now just file sharing and generating in a controlled environment where for intellectual property reasons IP protocols cannot be used.  An example that I would at least use myself is a certificate authority environment but that is not the only application I have in mind.  I am acutely aware that IP protocols could be used to generate those completely disconnected from the Internet and in a safe way.  The reason for these decisions is not just technical.  It is legal and has to do with the fact that I can and would tell a federal agency without a legal subpoena from a persons local courts kiss off and could do so legally if I do not use IP.  If I use IP or Internet Protocol I cannot on those machines generating the certificates I cannot.  It may be with the proper tools written for Windows 98 as an example with Netbeui I could achieve these goals.  I was and am investigating using FreeBSD, even with newer routing protocols if they could be written or are written that do not have the legal baggage IP does with the U.S. federal government having Intellectual Property rights to Internet Protocol or IP as I used it abbreviated in this post.


----------



## Crivens (Apr 12, 2019)

What makes you feel that way?


----------



## hammer185 (Apr 12, 2019)

The law


----------



## Crivens (Apr 12, 2019)

Interesting. Does the law bother you?


----------



## rigoletto@ (Apr 12, 2019)

hammer185 your question looks more suited to freebsd-net and freebsd-transport mail lists. And the related IRC channels.


----------



## hammer185 (Apr 12, 2019)

No the law does not bother me.  Both my responsibilities under it myself and as a business owner including when necessary poiinting out government entities are acting illegally are something that is par for the course these days with me.  This is the appropriate place for this question.  Answer the question.  Are the any networking protocols supported officially by FreeBSD other than protocols that depend on IP such as IPv4 and IPv6.   It seems the answer is no.  If so, that's all I need to know at this point.


----------



## SirDice (Apr 15, 2019)

hammer185 said:


> It is legal and has to do with the fact that I can and would tell a federal agency without a legal subpoena from a persons local courts kiss off and could do so legally if I do not use IP.


IP has nothing to do with this. I'm not even American and even I'm aware of the 4th amendment.



hammer185 said:


> federal government having Intellectual Property rights to Internet Protocol or IP as I used it abbreviated in this post.


The government (US, federal or otherwise) does not have intellectual property rights on TCP/IP.


----------



## hammer185 (Apr 15, 2019)

Perhaps since you are not protected by the 4th amendment nor would you be likely ever admitted as a citizen if you actually think the only viable routing protocol used in perhaps all the world is not intrinsically bound to U.S. Federal Government intellectual property it would be best if you actually focused on answering the original question.


----------



## SirDice (Apr 15, 2019)

There are no patents on TCP/IP. And even if there were, that doesn't automatically give the owner of those patents complete and unfettered access to your network.


----------



## Crivens (Apr 15, 2019)

hammer185 said:


> Perhaps since you are not protected by the 4th amendment nor would you be likely ever admitted as a citizen if you actually think the only viable routing protocol used in perhaps all the world is not intrinsically bound to U.S. Federal Government intellectual property it would be best if you actually focused on answering the original question.


You come trough as bossy and arrogant, and I hope you are not. But to make this clear:
No one here owes you anything, not even the time of day. You my ask for an answer, but demanding one will not help your cause. Not listening will also not improve your outcome. Listening will. Smearing people here won't.


----------



## hammer185 (Apr 15, 2019)

"Can I get directed to where I could read about official if any support of any protocols supported by still currently supported FreeBSD versions other than IPv4 and IPv4? "


----------



## usdmatt (Apr 15, 2019)

No, FreeBSD does not officially support any of the alternatives to IPv4/v6.



> kiss off and could do so legally if I do not use IP. If I use IP or Internet Protocol I cannot on those machines generating the certificates I cannot


IANAL, but this sounds like tin foil hat conspiracy stuff. You're suggesting that if the government specifically decided they have reason to investigate you, whether you used IP protocols or not would make a difference? What about if you're still using Ethernet? The protocols were all developed in Academia and I've seen no reports ever that someone doing something illegal has fallen foul because their use of IP allowed federal agencies unfettered access to all their systems.


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Apr 15, 2019)

hammer185 said:


> No the law does not bother me.  Both my responsibilities under it myself and as a business owner including when necessary poiinting out government entities are acting illegally are something that is par for the course these days with me.  This is the appropriate place for this question.  Answer the question.



Are you hiring?


----------



## hammer185 (Apr 15, 2019)

I really don't have time for all the other things brought up that were never relevant to my original post.  I know where I can use FreeBSD and where I cannot now.  Thank you.


----------



## Chris236 (May 1, 2019)

Adding some fun observation.  As others noted, the US government does not hold any intellectual property on TCP/IP, neither patents nor copyrights.  The other protocols you mention, though, are much more US-owned -. IPX is basically Novell Inc, and NETBEUI is sunk somewhere in the swamp between Microsoft and IBM - all stalwarts of US technical hegemony.

If you really want to go unencumbered international, even in terms of specified protocols, your only choice is probably ISO-OSI, with CLNP or X.25 as transport. And good luck finding anything that supports that - IP has basically smothered every other networking protocol in existence.  They are all either dying or dead already.


----------



## Phishfry (May 1, 2019)

Don't forget AppleTalk




__





						AppleTalk - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Chris236 (May 1, 2019)

On a second note, our original poster is not entirely unreasonable. Given the arbitrary, unhinged and wantonly malvolent ways the US government and US courts use all things US to claim you being subject to US law, it is not unreasonable to think that at some point any such entity claims "you used TCP/IP for this, thus you are subject to US law.  They do this bullshit with the Dollar already (see the case of that Huawei Lady sitting in a Canadian Jail on behest of the US), and they quite arbitrarily do so with other tech - in Australia there is an Iranian woman rotting in Jail (even in solitary) for three years now, fighting extradition to the US, because when she still worked in Iran she helped a small malaysian company obtain vanilla DSPs probably produced in Taiwan or Malaysia anyway and bought them for her company in Iran.

The US has become the world's ugly, malevolent and unpredictable bully, and I can't fault people trying to stay out of its way by a wide margin.


----------



## Chris236 (May 1, 2019)

Phishfry said:


> Don't forget AppleTalk



Unencumbered and international in origin?


----------



## Phishfry (May 1, 2019)

Well it started with you mentioning NetBUI and IPX. I had to jump on the pre-TCP/IP bandwagon.
net/netatalk3 
With version 3 they ditched AppleTalk. The last vestiges gone.


----------



## phoenix (May 1, 2019)

Chris236 said:


> They do this bullshit with the Dollar already (see the case of that Huawei Lady sitting in a Canadian Jail on behest of the US), and they quite arbitrarily do so with other tech - in Australia there is an Iranian woman rotting in Jail (even in solitary) for three years now, fighting extradition to the US, because when she still worked in Iran she helped a small malaysian company obtain vanilla DSPs probably produced in Taiwan or Malaysia anyway and bought them for her company in Iran.



Note:  "that Huawei Lady" isn't sitting in a Canadian jail.  She was released on bail, and living quite comfortably in her mansion in Vancouver.  She's awaiting extradition to the US, where she may languish in a US jail, but that's up to the courts to decide.


----------



## LVLouisCyphre (Dec 21, 2019)

hammer185 said:


> Perhaps ...
> answering the original question.


The question was pretty much answered if you knew _*anything*_ about the IT industry.  When Cisco drops a protocol from their routing products, it's dead.  Novell dropped NetWare which was the death of IPX.  When the dominant stock holder or player of a protocol or technology is out; the protocol or technology will die out due to obsolence.

I supported a WAN in a large school district with Appletalk, IPX and IPv4.  It was a nightmare.  I also did some DECnet before it was phased out (pun intended).

If you're that concerned about it, tunnel what you're doing over IPv4/6.  Problem solved.  Next thing you're going to ask is for token ring with VLANs.


----------

