 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | Router Upgrades? Will this have any impact on existing IPv4 home routers? Would an IPv6 capable router be required for your home network, or is this change backward compatible with existing equipment? |
|
 alphapointeDon't Touch MePremium,MVM
join:2002-02-10
Columbia, MO
kudos:2 | They'll at least have to replace and/or update CPE devices (modems, etc) to allow for ipv6 WAN addresses. I'm sure you can have IPv4 on the LAN side if necessary. |
|
 RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | said by alphapointe:They'll at least have to replace and/or update CPE devices (modems, etc) to allow for ipv6 WAN addresses. I'm sure you can have IPv4 on the LAN side if necessary. DOCSIS3 Modems come with IPv6 support. As for DOCSIS2 Modems, there is DOCSIS2 IPv6 support if the Cable Company pushes the Microcode to the Modem - See the info at »www.cablemodem.com/specification···s20.html. |
|
| reply to jmn1207
said by jmn1207:Will this have any impact on existing IPv4 home routers? Would an IPv6 capable router be required for your home network, or is this change backward compatible with existing equipment? The funny part is that you probably will. Even though a firmware flash can add IPv6 functionality, the manufactures probably wont release an update. The "residential" class routers are a POS and most only support IPv4. I will never admin a network with a residential router because they are buggy and whenever I tried to use one they never worked right. Even business class routers bog down on me.
Once I started using DD-WRT, I haven't had a network problem since. I will only buy Linksys WRT54GL routers (at least until I can find another router that is fully compatible with DD-WRT). |
|
 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
 ·Frontier FiOS
| said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:I will never admin a network with a residential router...I will only buy Linksys WRT54GL routers Contradict yourself much? |
|
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T Southeast
| said by cdru:said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:I will never admin a network with a residential router...I will only buy Linksys WRT54GL routers Contradict yourself much? Priceless  |
|
 spamdPremium
join:2001-04-22
Cherry Valley, IL | reply to k1ll3rdr4g0n
Wow.. A simple little SHO router owns you?? LMAO.
Truth is the current SHO routers for consumer use can run IPv6 with a simple firmware update. However manufactures of these consumer SHO routers are not going too. Simply because they would rather make you pay for a new router to support IPv6.. The same way Micro$oft and hardware vendors (creative, hp and many others) forced you to buy new hardware to run Vista.
--
When everything is coming your way, you are in the wrong lane. |
|
| reply to hayabusa3303
said by hayabusa3303:said by cdru:said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:I will never admin a network with a residential router...I will only buy Linksys WRT54GL routers Contradict yourself much? Priceless I didn't contradict myself? I said I installed DD-WRT, unless of course you didn't read my post very carefully and only wanted to take me out of context. |
|
|
|
| reply to spamd
said by spamd:Wow.. A simple little SHO router owns you?? LMAO. Truth is the current SHO routers for consumer use can run IPv6 with a simple firmware update. However manufactures of these consumer SHO routers are not going too. Simply because they would rather make you pay for a new router to support IPv6.. The same way Micro$oft and hardware vendors (creative, hp and many others) forced you to buy new hardware to run Vista. I am starting to get the feeling that no one even reads my posts because that is exactly what I just said.
Why do I even bother to post if no one will read what I write? I wonder if its the lack of a reading ability is the problem.
And I wont even touch the "you need new hardware for vista" because, well, its simply untrue. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_vi···irements
What is this? "Post all lies week" or something and I didn't get the memo? |
|
TheMGPremium
join:2007-09-04
Canada
kudos:1 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
1 edit | reply to k1ll3rdr4g0n
said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:said by jmn1207:Will this have any impact on existing IPv4 home routers? Would an IPv6 capable router be required for your home network, or is this change backward compatible with existing equipment? The funny part is that you probably will. Even though a firmware flash can add IPv6 functionality, the manufactures probably wont release an update. True that. In fact, I contacted D-Link a little while ago to ask if they planned to have an update for IPv6 on their routers. The answer was something along the lines of "we do not plan to release such an update any time soon".
This kind of crap pisses me off though. I can think of many other examples other than routers where manufacturers pull off stuff like that. I hate it when devices rendered obsolete that could have been useful for many more years if only the manufacturer would have released a software/firmware update.
One of the advantages of IPv6 that's being pushed around is the fact that every networked device can have its own internet IP. Some say this eliminates the need for a router. Personally I wouldn't like the idea of having every device wide open to the internet. A hardware firewall is never a bad thing. |
|
| reply to k1ll3rdr4g0n
said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:I didn't contradict myself? I said I installed DD-WRT, unless of course you didn't read my post very carefully and only wanted to take me out of context. DD-WRT is a third-party firmware written for consumer level devices. Especially added with the fact that you're running it on a WRT54GL. So yeah, you contradicted yourself.
If you said something like m0n0wall or pfSense (Which I run) on an x86, then yeah, that's not consumer level.
And before you starting going goo-goo-gah-gah for DD-WRT, don't forget that many of the devices its meant for can't even use IPv6 since they've apparently decided those users with gimped FLASH roms aren't good enough to spend the time writing the extra bit of code to support IPv6. Even, at minimal, IPv6 Encapsulation is not supported. |
|
| reply to k1ll3rdr4g0n
said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:said by spamd:Wow.. A simple little SHO router owns you?? LMAO. Truth is the current SHO routers for consumer use can run IPv6 with a simple firmware update. However manufactures of these consumer SHO routers are not going too. Simply because they would rather make you pay for a new router to support IPv6.. The same way Micro$oft and hardware vendors (creative, hp and many others) forced you to buy new hardware to run Vista. I am starting to get the feeling that no one even reads my posts because that is exactly what I just said. Why do I even bother to post if no one will read what I write? I wonder if its the lack of a reading ability is the problem. And I wont even touch the "you need new hardware for vista" because, well, its simply untrue. » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_vi···irementsWhat is this? "Post all lies week" or something and I didn't get the memo? Err... might want to do some research there. There was indeed acknowledged colluding to phase out Windows XP and Push "Vista Capable" onto people.
That's why there was kind of a class-action lawsuit about it...
Original Lawsuit: »www.seattlepi.com/business/31000···d03.html
Class-Action Status: »www.seattlepi.com/business/35244···a23.html
»blogs.computerworld.com/more_dir···_lawsuit
It later loss class-action status after being unable to find proof of "class-wide inflation", but that does not negate the fact that the suit is ongoing. Persons are still free to enter into individual suits if they so see fit.
»news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10167···1_3-0-20
So what's the lesson in this you may be asking: "Shall I figure out that the people I'm trying to talk down to actually might know what they're talking about?" Before you go insulting people, try doing research first. |
|
 djdanskaRudie32Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
kudos:4
 ·Clear Wireless
·Time Warner Cable
·T-Mobile US
| reply to k1ll3rdr4g0n
said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:said by jmn1207:Will this have any impact on existing IPv4 home routers? Would an IPv6 capable router be required for your home network, or is this change backward compatible with existing equipment? The funny part is that you probably will. Even though a firmware flash can add IPv6 functionality, the manufactures probably wont release an update. The "residential" class routers are a POS and most only support IPv4. I will never admin a network with a residential router because they are buggy and whenever I tried to use one they never worked right. Even business class routers bog down on me. Once I started using DD-WRT, I haven't had a network problem since. I will only buy Linksys WRT54GL routers (at least until I can find another router that is fully compatible with DD-WRT). My Linksys wrt150n router was able to run dd-wrt. (and is a n router). Worked very well. (Until a flash went bad. Now i can't get it to work right). I bought a wrt160n since my friend has one and i was able to put dd-wrt on it but apparently the v1 160n can have dd-wrt but the v2 can't. There may be a v2 of the wrt150n.
If i had to again, i would get the wrt150n or other n router that supports dd-wrt. The wrt160n v2 does work pretty well with stock linksys firmware. Doesn't have broadcom. Something else. I am pretty happy, but really did want dd-wrt on it.
--
The day the child realizes that all adults are imperfect, he becomes an adolescent; the day he forgives them, he becomes an adult. The day he forgives himself, he becomes wise.
Alden Nowlan |
|
| reply to PapaMidnight
said by PapaMidnight:said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:said by spamd:Wow.. A simple little SHO router owns you?? LMAO. Truth is the current SHO routers for consumer use can run IPv6 with a simple firmware update. However manufactures of these consumer SHO routers are not going too. Simply because they would rather make you pay for a new router to support IPv6.. The same way Micro$oft and hardware vendors (creative, hp and many others) forced you to buy new hardware to run Vista. I am starting to get the feeling that no one even reads my posts because that is exactly what I just said. Why do I even bother to post if no one will read what I write? I wonder if its the lack of a reading ability is the problem. And I wont even touch the "you need new hardware for vista" because, well, its simply untrue. » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_vi···irementsWhat is this? "Post all lies week" or something and I didn't get the memo? Err... might want to do some research there. There was indeed acknowledged colluding to phase out Windows XP and Push "Vista Capable" onto people. That's why there was kind of a class-action lawsuit about it... Original Lawsuit: » www.seattlepi.com/business/31000···d03.htmlClass-Action Status: » www.seattlepi.com/business/35244···a23.html» blogs.computerworld.com/more_dir···_lawsuitIt later loss class-action status after being unable to find proof of "class-wide inflation", but that does not negate the fact that the suit is ongoing. Persons are still free to enter into individual suits if they so see fit. » news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10167···1_3-0-20So what's the lesson in this you may be asking: "Shall I figure out that the people I'm trying to talk down to actually might know what they're talking about?" Before you go insulting people, try doing research first. quote:
A lawsuit alleges that Microsoft Corp. engaged in deceptive practices by letting PC makers promote computers as "Windows Vista Capable" even if they couldn't run the new operating system's "signature" features.
I don't see anywhere it says that the OS couldn't run. If you really couldn't figure out that the "graphical" features needed a better "graphics device" well then I think you need some logic 101. But, I ran Windows Server 2008 on a box that was fairly old but had a somewhat decent video card in it, ran great. With that I have never actually used Vista, but I wouldn't personally expect "graphical features" to run on a 16MB PCI video card, would you?
If you want to be really picky about the graphical features of your OS, install Linux or buy a Mac. If you want gaming or do work related stuff buy a PC. |
|
| reply to PapaMidnight
said by PapaMidnight:said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:I didn't contradict myself? I said I installed DD-WRT, unless of course you didn't read my post very carefully and only wanted to take me out of context. DD-WRT is a third-party firmware written for consumer level devices. Especially added with the fact that you're running it on a WRT54GL. So yeah, you contradicted yourself. If you said something like m0n0wall or pfSense (Which I run) on an x86, then yeah, that's not consumer level. And before you starting going goo-goo-gah-gah for DD-WRT, don't forget that many of the devices its meant for can't even use IPv6 since they've apparently decided those users with gimped FLASH roms aren't good enough to spend the time writing the extra bit of code to support IPv6. Even, at minimal, IPv6 Encapsulation is not supported. If you want to be technical I did contradict myself, but I never I used the base firmware. I did say the stock firmware sucks. Did I not? Why would I say something sucks then turn around and use it? You are either reading too much into it or not enough.
Do you use a whole computer for your firewall? What are you trying to protect it against? DD-WRT has iptables which is a "good enough" firewall for most networks (it is a lot more powerful than you think).
And what are you talking about? I think you should rewrite that paragraph because to me it seems that your saying DD-WRT doesn't support IPv6 because of the "gimped roms". |
|
| said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:said by PapaMidnight:said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:I didn't contradict myself? I said I installed DD-WRT, unless of course you didn't read my post very carefully and only wanted to take me out of context. DD-WRT is a third-party firmware written for consumer level devices. Especially added with the fact that you're running it on a WRT54GL. So yeah, you contradicted yourself. If you said something like m0n0wall or pfSense (Which I run) on an x86, then yeah, that's not consumer level. And before you starting going goo-goo-gah-gah for DD-WRT, don't forget that many of the devices its meant for can't even use IPv6 since they've apparently decided those users with gimped FLASH roms aren't good enough to spend the time writing the extra bit of code to support IPv6. Even, at minimal, IPv6 Encapsulation is not supported. If you want to be technical I did contradict myself, but I never I used the base firmware. I did say the stock firmware sucks. Did I not? Why would I say something sucks then turn around and use it? You are either reading too much into it or not enough. Do you use a whole computer for your firewall? What are you trying to protect it against? DD-WRT has iptables which is a "good enough" firewall for most networks (it is a lot more powerful than you think). And what are you talking about? I think you should rewrite that paragraph because to me it seems that your saying DD-WRT doesn't support IPv6 because of the "gimped roms". As a matter of fact, yes I do use an entire computer for a firewall / NAT Router / etc.
Intel Pentium III 733MHz
256MB SDRAM
3 Linksys 10/100 NICs
pfSense
I'd like to see a 216MHz Linksys Router with 16MB of RAM stand up to that... I get going good and that DD-WRT router will be crippled in mere seconds.
As soon as I get around to it, I'm going to get some RB44G's (»www.routerboard.com/rb44.html).
And I was quite clear about my statement. Most of the devices DD-WRT has been ported to do not support any version of DD-WRT above Micro and are incapable of IPv6 as the developers do not code for it. They have not offered IPv6 Encapsulation either (look up IPv6 Tunnel Brokers).
So users with WRT54Gv5-8.2 and the newer, slim, black WRT54Gs have no prospects of IPv6, unless DD-WRT developers see fit to code support for it into their "Micro" distribution. This point is not limited merely to the WRT54G line either as most devices "supported" ( »www.dd-wrt.com/dd-wrtv3/dd-wrt/hardware.html ) by DD-WRT only support the "Micro" or "Mini" distributions. Neither of which, as established, supports IPv6. |
|
| said by PapaMidnight:As a matter of fact, yes I do use an entire computer for a firewall / NAT Router / etc. Intel Pentium III 733MHz 256MB SDRAM 3 Linksys 10/100 NICs pfSense I'd like to see a 216MHz Linksys Router with 16MB of RAM stand up to that... I get going good and that DD-WRT router will be crippled in mere seconds. As soon as I get around to it, I'm going to get some RB44G's (» www.routerboard.com/rb44.html). And I was quite clear about my statement. Most of the devices DD-WRT has been ported to do not support any version of DD-WRT above Micro and are incapable of IPv6 as the developers do not code for it. They have not offered IPv6 Encapsulation either (look up IPv6 Tunnel Brokers). So users with WRT54Gv5-8.2 and the newer, slim, black WRT54Gs have no prospects of IPv6, unless DD-WRT developers see fit to code support for it into their "Micro" distribution. This point is not limited merely to the WRT54G line either as most devices "supported" ( » www.dd-wrt.com/dd-wrtv3/dd-wrt/hardware.html ) by DD-WRT only support the "Micro" or "Mini" distributions. Neither of which, as established, supports IPv6. I really don't think ANYONE needs a whole computer as a firewall but that's besides the point.
The standard version does support IPv6 to some extent.
»www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/IPv6
To be honest - I wouldn't use anything BUT a Linksys for DD-WRT which DD-WRT does support a good chunk for anything std and above:
»www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Su···_Devices
Also I am running DD-WRT std on my Linksys WRT54GL and I have the option for IPv6.
WRT54Gv5 doesn't seem like its a "supported" Linksys model so why are you even mentioning it?
My dad just bought a WRT160N and it has the same memory as my WRT54GL and its supported so I don't see why he couldn't run std. So, your theory of newer Linksys models not being able to run DD-WRT has just been put to rest.
Just curious - why are you trying to throw around misinformation? |
|
djdanskaRudie32Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
kudos:4 Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
·Time Warner Cable
·T-Mobile US
| As long as it has a broadcom chip in it, your usually good. My wrt160n v2 doesn't, and can't run dd-wrt. The v1 model does though. Doesn't say v1 or v2 on the box, otherwise i wouldn't have not bought it.
--
The day the child realizes that all adults are imperfect, he becomes an adolescent; the day he forgives them, he becomes an adult. The day he forgives himself, he becomes wise.
Alden Nowlan |
|
| said by djdanska:As long as it has a broadcom chip in it, your usually good. My wrt160n v2 doesn't, and can't run dd-wrt. The v1 model does though. Doesn't say v1 or v2 on the box, otherwise i wouldn't have not bought it. Yeah I think after they realized that people started to flash the router with third party firmware (and possibly after Cisco bought them out) I don't see the version number on the outside. Though, you can always look up UPC code before hand and compare. This one reason why I made the blanket statement of only buying a WRT54GL because both versions can support any version of DD-WRT. This way I don't have to specifically hunt down a version. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | said by k1ll3rdr4g0n:said by djdanska:As long as it has a broadcom chip in it, your usually good. My wrt160n v2 doesn't, and can't run dd-wrt. The v1 model does though. Doesn't say v1 or v2 on the box, otherwise i wouldn't have not bought it. Yeah I think after they realized that people started to flash the router with third party firmware (and possibly after Cisco bought them out) I don't see the version number on the outside. Though, you can always look up UPC code before hand and compare. This one reason why I made the blanket statement of only buying a WRT54GL because both versions can support any version of DD-WRT. This way I don't have to specifically hunt down a version. I think the serial number is also on the box and the prefix will identify the version number. |
|
