dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
161481
share rss forum feed

kevinds
Premium
join:2003-05-01
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Shaw

1 recommendation

reply to cdegroot

Re: IPv6 beta

If you are still looking for an answer...

/64 is generally regarded as the smallest a subnet should be.

/48 seems excessive though /56 should be sufficent, why larger than /64 when routers are involved, so the router can futher subnet the /48 or /56 into multiple /64's
--
Yes, I am not employed and looking for IT work. Have passport, will travel.


System
reply to TSI Gabe

This topic has been un-stickied by fourboxers See Profile



Pico

@91.239.97.x
reply to TSI Gabe

Re: IPv6 beta

I've set up a DIR-601 (latest firmware) for relatives in Niagara Falls, Ontario.

The instructions they were emailed gave a static configuration with a /64 WAN prefix and a /56 LAN prefix, but when the router is configured that way it just gets automatically overridden by DHCP-PD—the router gets a /64 WAN, and a /64 LAN dynamically out of a pool of (apparently) 2^16 prefixes.

The comments to this board recommend sharing the hsiservice login between IPv4 and IPv6, but this resulted in broken IPv4 connectivity, while using separate teksavvy and hsiservice logins for IPv4 and IPv6 respectively appears to work. Is this the expected behaviour of the IPv6 service in Niagara Falls, or should I be worried about the current router setup?

Also, they're using P2P SIP, and while a dynamic prefix isn't a show-stopper it's pretty inconvenient. Is there any way that TekSavvy could set its DHCP server to assign a consistent prefix?



anon ipv6

@verizon.net
reply to cdegroot

said by cdegroot:

I'm making two statements. Which one is your question referring to? The "interesting-to-techies-only" bit or the "it'll take a while" bit?

Sorry about that.

"it'll take a while" bit / I want to get used to IPv6 before it becomes ubiquitous; probably somewhere around 2030, that is...

cdegroot

join:2013-08-31
Canada
reply to anon ipv6

I'm making two statements. Which one is your question referring to? The "interesting-to-techies-only" bit or the "it'll take a while" bit?



anon ipv6

@verizon.net
reply to cdegroot

said by cdegroot:

If you're not a techie, probably not. I am, and I want to get used to IPv6 before it becomes ubiquitous; probably somewhere around 2030, that is.

Why is that?

Thank you

cdegroot

join:2013-08-31
Canada

1 recommendation

reply to Cubytus

If you're not a techie, probably not. I am, and I want to get used to IPv6 before it becomes ubiquitous; probably somewhere around 2030, that is.


Cubytus

join:2007-08-24
reply to aefstoggaflm

More or less. Still no compelling or really interesting reason to subscribe to it.



aefstoggaflm
Open Source Fan
Premium
join:2002-03-04
Bethlehem, PA
kudos:7
Reviews:
·PenTeleData
·Verizon Online DSL
reply to Cubytus

said by Cubytus:

Maybe late at the party, but except for boasting rights, what does IPv6 currently provides on Teksavvy?

I point to »[IPv6] Why all the hoopla over IPv6?

Does or does not answer your question?
--
Please use the "yellow (IM) envelope" to contact me and please leave the URL intact.


jmck
formerly 'shaded'

join:2010-10-02
Ottawa, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·Start Communicat..

1 recommendation

reply to Cubytus

said by Cubytus:

Maybe late at the party, but except for boasting rights, what does IPv6 currently provides on Teksavvy?

there have been a few IPv6 only services out there (free usenet accounts for IPv6 users). who knows what else might be exclusive in the future too. for the most part it shows TSI won't be late to the party when the world actually moves to IPv6 since it's rather complicated to get fully deployed. it shows TSI will have options when CGNAT deployment will be a requirement too in the near future.

Cubytus

join:2007-08-24
reply to TSI Gabe

Maybe late at the party, but except for boasting rights, what does IPv6 currently provides on Teksavvy?


cdegroot

join:2013-08-31
Canada
reply to TSI Gabe

Just curious - why do you specify a /48 for cases where routers are involved? I'm using just the /64 I received from Teksavvy and SLAAC/NDP, works like a charm (but then, usually I overlook something )


pjlahaie

join:2009-03-14
Ottawa, ON
reply to TSI Gabe

Is it possible to use both the IPv6 and IPv4 PPPoE logins simultaneously?

Use the v6 PPPoE for v6 only (no v4) and route all the v4 via the other interface?


volga629

join:2013-08-16
reply to volga629

Here my ping result for mtu issue. Need correct mtu to 1420 to get optimal size

[root@test ~]# ping6 -M do -s 1452 ipv6.google.com
PING ipv6.google.com(yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net) 1452 data bytes
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::1 icmp_seq=1 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
From 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485
^CFrom 2607:f2c0:f00e:7200::2 icmp_seq=2 Packet too big: mtu=1485

--- ipv6.google.com ping statistics ---
1 packets transmitted, 0 received, +21 errors, 100% packet loss, time 1985ms

[root@test ~]# ping6 -M do -s 1420 ipv6.google.com
PING ipv6.google.com(yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net) 1420 data bytes
1428 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=33.7 ms
1428 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=54.7 ms
1428 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=36.4 ms
1428 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=4 ttl=57 time=52.5 ms
^C1428 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=5 ttl=57 time=40.2 ms
1428 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=6 ttl=57 time=46.2 ms
^C
--- ipv6.google.com ping statistics ---
6 packets transmitted, 6 received, 0% packet loss, time 5005ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 33.776/44.013/54.752/7.840 ms
[root@test ~]# ping6 -M do -s 1428 ipv6.google.com
PING ipv6.google.com(yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net) 1428 data bytes
1436 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=120 ms
1436 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=55.0 ms
1436 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=123 ms
1436 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=4 ttl=57 time=97.2 ms
1436 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=5 ttl=57 time=90.3 ms
1436 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=6 ttl=57 time=97.8 ms
1436 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=7 ttl=57 time=73.1 ms
1436 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=8 ttl=57 time=39.7 ms
1436 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=9 ttl=57 time=53.5 ms
1436 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=10 ttl=57 time=64.0 ms
1436 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=11 ttl=57 time=80.4 ms
1436 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=12 ttl=57 time=35.0 ms
1436 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=13 ttl=57 time=71.9 ms
1436 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x14.1e100.net: icmp_seq=14 ttl=57 time=77.0 ms
^C
--- ipv6.google.com ping statistics ---
14 packets transmitted, 14 received, 0% packet loss, time 13013ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 35.053/77.150/123.811/26.094 ms
[root@casipgw01 ~]#


volga629

join:2013-08-16
reply to volga629

Thank you for help. I got Ipv6 working.
Pfsense working good.
I wonder when tracking interface possible to use.

[root@test ~]# ping6 ipv6.google.com
PING ipv6.google.com(yyz08s14-in-x13.1e100.net) 56 data bytes
64 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x13.1e100.net: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=135 ms
64 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x13.1e100.net: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=116 ms
64 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x13.1e100.net: icmp_seq=3 ttl=57 time=149 ms
64 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x13.1e100.net: icmp_seq=4 ttl=57 time=193 ms


volga629

join:2013-08-16
reply to eli

Thank you for suggestion. Gateway shows offline. I wonder what mtu need specified, currently set to 1492.


eli

join:2012-11-22
Canada
reply to volga629

You use DHCP6 on the IPv6 PPPoE. You then set the static /56 on the LAN interface.


volga629

join:2013-08-16
reply to TSI Gabe

Hello Everyone.
I am trying get pfsense working with ipv6. I have one dailer pppoe0 which configured to ipv4 which working good. I added another pppoe interface which ipv6, but I am can't get what mode need set to ipv6 interface. I tried set to static and assign first ip from subnet, but it didn't worked.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to jacobhuh

said by jacobhuh:

Those using PFSense, currently the 2.1RC does support IPV6 for regular single connection DSL lines, but anything in MLPPP does not work. It has not been fully implemented and/or is broken, I don't think it has ever worked. My setup is 2 - 25M/2M VDSL Lines in MLPPP with PFSense 2.1RC.

Jacob

Sounds like some sort of PFSense specific bug. Both userland PPP and MPD support MLPPP + IPv6. Have a bug report/forum post or anything about this?


clarknova

join:2010-02-23
Grande Prairie, AB
kudos:7
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to jacobhuh

I tried with one of the earlier betas and got no WAN connectivity at all. Only after disabling IPv6 did I get any IPv4 connectivity.

I haven't tried lately as I run pfsense only at a couple of remote sites, so I don't get to mess with them much.
--
db


jacobhuh

join:2012-10-15
Calgary, AB
reply to TSI Gabe

Those using PFSense, currently the 2.1RC does support IPV6 for regular single connection DSL lines, but anything in MLPPP does not work. It has not been fully implemented and/or is broken, I don't think it has ever worked. My setup is 2 - 25M/2M VDSL Lines in MLPPP with PFSense 2.1RC.

Jacob


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 edit
reply to TSI Gabe

Gabe at least mentioned recently he is working on it... so who knows.

»Re: ipv6 out West


notfred

join:2012-09-15
reply to Ternerito

I asked Marc that given how long the beta has been and the response was "Good question." After the last CRTC decision they have been slammed with new subscribers and current customers upgrading as well as migrating Rogers to aggregated access.


Ternerito

join:2002-08-31
GVA
reply to notfred

Does anyone know when ipv6 is coming out of beta, and extended to the whole TS customer base?


notfred

join:2012-09-15
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to Ternerito

said by Ternerito:

Where does the extra latency come from, compared to ipv4?

The PPPoE sessions for the IPv6/IPv4 combined login terminate on a different set of equipment from the PPPoE sessions for the pure IPv4 sessions. This equipment or the lines to it is congested during peak periods. It's nothing to do with it being IPv6, just to do with it being in beta so they aren't throwing tons of resources at it. Once it comes out of beta and ends up on the main equipment it should be fine.

Ternerito

join:2002-08-31
GVA
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to SimplePanda

Thanks for replying SimplePanda. Where does the extra latency come from, compared to ipv4? I'm taking a course, and the instructor was explaining that ipv6 as the best thing since sliced bread. He also mentioned that teksavvy is one provider who offers it, so I thought maybe time to try it. If it's not available in GVA, then that simplifies things a lot.



SimplePanda
Go Habs Go
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to Ternerito

said by Ternerito:

Before I go and read all 33 pages of this thread.

Are there any drawbacks in switching to IPv6 for your home LAN (other than the obvious need for some re-configuration? Things like known services breaking (Netflix, VoIP come to mind).

I'm connecting on VDSL (PPPoE) in the GVA. I have a pfSense router - do I need to update from 2.0.3 firmware?

Is this actually still a beta?

Thanks,
Luca

- Yes it's still a beta.

- I don't think it works at all in Vancouver anyways (Ontario/Quebec only as far as I know).

- It's unusably latent during peak periods and it's generally faster to tunnel if you NEED IPv6 access for something.

Ternerito

join:2002-08-31
GVA
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to TSI Gabe

Before I go and read all 33 pages of this thread.

Are there any drawbacks in switching to IPv6 for your home LAN (other than the obvious need for some re-configuration? Things like known services breaking (Netflix, VoIP come to mind).

I'm connecting on VDSL (PPPoE) in the GVA. I have a pfSense router - do I need to update from 2.0.3 firmware?

Is this actually still a beta?

Thanks,
Luca


tross

join:2010-06-11
kudos:1
reply to 34764170

That's interesting, thanks for that. So there's something to look forward to.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 edit
reply to tross

said by tross:

Rogers's IPv6 website doesn't seem to have been updated recently and Google doesn't bring up anything of interest for the past year or so. Any idea how things are progressing on their end?

From the Rogers forum it would appear they are doing some forms of field trials in some areas with their business customers first. They are more than likely also doing internal testing with employees only as well; which I've heard of from some other MSOs as well. On the surface you're not hearing much but most of the North American MSOs are doing field trials/testing whether its consumer or business side first varies and/or internal employees. From the looks of it some of these MSOs will be making full on production roll outs within the next 6 months just as Comcast has and are very close to completing.