dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
162111
share rss forum feed
« Service in Richmond Hill[Outages] out in London »
prev page · 1 · 2 · 3 ... 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 ... 21 · 22 · 23 · next


theboyk

join:2004-10-04
Toronto, ON
reply to TSI Gabe

Re: IPv6 beta

So, I put in a new (old) router last night (at home) - a D-Link DIR825 - and it seems to be running IPv6 quite well. It lacks an IPv6 firewall, so going to have to upgrade eventually, but for now, for testing, it's doing the trick.

Anyway - when I run the test-ipv6 tests, I get 10/10 and 10/10, but, when I test something like ipv6test.google.com, it says "no problems", but under that, it says "you don't have ipv6, but you shouldn't have problems with sites that add ipv6 support".

Can anyone explain what this means?

Thanks,
Kristin.


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

1 recommendation

Few things: Are you using a Mac? Latest Mac's have basically broken IPV6 support. Apple would argue it's "working" in that IPV6 works and is rock solid, but the issue is how Apple chooses IPV6 vs IPV4 for connectivity. While the standard / accepted practice (in Windows 7 / Linux for example) is to favour IPV6 when present, Apple has chosen to implement a scheme where by the first DNS record returned is the protocol used.

Second possibility: you're caching the IP from a previous lookup. Try flushing your DNS caches (router and computer) and try again.


theboyk

join:2004-10-04
Toronto, ON

1 recommendation

Good to know!

At home, all Macs (desktop/portables), various iOS devices and old Windows XP box (so, I'll run a test from there and compare the results). At work, which I'll be eventually rolling IPv6 out to, is 99% Macs (40+ desktop/portables/Xserves) & iOS devices, with only a handful of Windows machines.

So, that said, if a particular website was IPv6 only, then it would still work, correct (as IPv4 wouldn't be present for that connection), but in a situation with both IPv4 and IPv6, the Mac will default to IPv4?


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

1 recommendation

Not quite.

If there is only IPV6, Mac OS will always access it over IPV6 without issue.

Likewise for IPV4.

If both IPV4 and IPV6 are available for a given site, the operating system dispatches two DNS lookup requests, one for the A record and one for the AAAA (IPV6). Whichever answer comes back first is the protocol the Mac chooses to use. This generally means that it's hit and miss as to which protocol the Mac chooses to use. This is why I call it 'broken'. It's not that it doesn't work - it's that it's wildly unpredictable and totally inconsistent.

For example, I just went to:

»whatismyipv6.com/

I was given my IPV4 address as Lion decided IPV4 was "faster". I hit refresh 4 or 5 times. Same result. 6th time around, I got connected via IPV6. A few more forced refreshes, back to IPV4.

Windows 7 and Ubuntu, on the other hand, are IPV6 on first and every access (as it should be).

Hopefully with IPV6 Launch Day coming Apple will get it's act together and update their V6 support. iOS and Lion both seem to be broken in the same way so it's clearly a Darwin / low level issue. Past versions of OS X weren't broken this way so fixing it shouldn't be an issue for them.

Apple has their reasons for doing this and I can understand -why-. I just wish they let you toggle it (even by sysctl) so that it worked in a more consistent way.

More info:
»www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6···805.html

Hope this helps.


theboyk

join:2004-10-04
Toronto, ON
Yea, something must be "broken" if you can't even toggle it or force it via terminal. Funny, I've only been testing on iOS and Lion, so I didn't realize it "worked" in pre-Lion. I'll also test that on an older box when I get home tonight.

Anyway, thanks for the information — that explains a lot!!!


Mersault

join:2007-10-26
Toronto, ON
Are you sure it's a mac thing and not a browser thing? I know some browsers were playing with different algorithms for choosing whether to be IPv4 or IPv6. It's considered a better user experience since IPv6 is a bastard child on most networks. Even on TekSavvy going with IPv6 can add 50ms to some round trips, due to crappier peering, peers, and routes in general.


theboyk

join:2004-10-04
Toronto, ON
I am in no authority to answer, but this thread adds some credence to that idea (and this is an old hint, back from 10.3 days)...

»hints.macworld.com/article.php?s···04026573

Edit: just tested multiple browsers, and results are the same as Safari (and on 2 of 6 reloads, IPv6 is used vs IPv4). Not definitive testing, but doesn't look like it's exclusively a browser issue.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to Mersault
said by Mersault:

Are you sure it's a mac thing and not a browser thing? I know some browsers were playing with different algorithms for choosing whether to be IPv4 or IPv6. It's considered a better user experience since IPv6 is a bastard child on most networks. Even on TekSavvy going with IPv6 can add 50ms to some round trips, due to crappier peering, peers, and routes in general.

The specific implementation he is referring to is an OS X 10.7/Lion issue as Apple has implemented a Happy Eyeballs implementation right in the OS's v6 stack for all apps to use
as opposed to built into the browser like Chrome/Firefox 10 and up.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to theboyk
said by theboyk:

I am in no authority to answer, but this thread adds some credence to that idea (and this is an old hint, back from 10.3 days)...

»hints.macworld.com/article.php?s···04026573

Edit: just tested multiple browsers, and results are the same as Safari (and on 2 of 6 reloads, IPv6 is used vs IPv4). Not definitive testing, but doesn't look like it's exclusively a browser issue.

That's another issue. Older OS X releases had other bugs with the resolver. For example anything older than 10.6.8 had a bug that prevents OS X from being used on a v6-only network as the resolver will randomly return a v4 address for a site that has a AAAA record.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to theboyk
said by theboyk:

Good to know!

At home, all Macs (desktop/portables), various iOS devices and old Windows XP box (so, I'll run a test from there and compare the results). At work, which I'll be eventually rolling IPv6 out to, is 99% Macs (40+ desktop/portables/Xserves) & iOS devices, with only a handful of Windows machines.

IMO I'd hope your Windows side is only Vista/7 and for Mac you're using 10.6.8 or preferably 10.7.x.


Mersault

join:2007-10-26
Toronto, ON
reply to 34764170
Yeah, doing happy eyeballs on the stack sounds like something Apple would do. And honestly, I don't see a problem with it. If my IPv6 connectivity is crappy I really would rather have my stuff go over IPv4. I like IPv6, but I don't want to have to put up with a slow and unresponsive internet for it.

ICMP (default options, 10 packets) to my colo in Seattle:
IPv4: round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 63.192/63.759/64.550/0.393 ms
IPv6: round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 78.003/78.432/78.708/0.194 ms

ICMP (default options, 10 packets) to my colo in Dallas:
IPv4: round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 40.789/41.073/41.411/0.196 ms
IPv6: round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 55.062/55.619/56.070/0.285 ms

ICMP (default options, 10 packets) from Dallas to Seattle colos:
IPv4: round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 48.486/48.674/48.939/0.150 ms
IPv6: round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 86.967/87.462/88.387/0.465 ms

The real problem isn't a happy eyeballs algorithm implemented on the network stack, it's that IPv6 transit is so terrible these days.


SimplePanda
Go Habs Go
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
My preference: Apple implements the way everyone else does so it's predictable. At that point, after June 6th if Youtube performance is poor we can start complaining to TSI that they need better V6 peering to Youtube, for example.

This is really the only way V6 is going to get rolled out and done so with good performance. Falling back on V4 every time V6 is a little slow will just drag this out.


Mersault

join:2007-10-26
Toronto, ON
You're making the assumption that Apple cares about IPv6. They don't. They aren't hostile to it or anything, it's just that IPv4 vs. IPv6 is totally irrelevant to their goals. They want their customers to have the best experience possible so that they keep coming back and buying more Apple products. There is a reason for the existence of Apple "fanboys" and it has very much to do with Apple's understanding of this. Apple is generally at their best when they're technology agnostic. Apple will be quite happy when after June 6th someone on Windows or Linux is struggling with a stuttering Youtube and the Mac user turns and says "it's working fine here". They will consider that a success.

It's up to the networking guys to make sure that the successful connections are over IPv6. It's not Apple's responsibility.

amranu

join:2009-06-22

1 edit
reply to TSI Gabe
My roommate has been attempting to setup ipv6. We're using a FreeBSD box as our router, however we've been having a bit of an issue with it.

We receive an ip address from teksavvy using rtsol, however we cannot run both rtsol and rtadvd when the router is setup to be an ipv6 gateway (rtsol will refuse to run). We've managed to work around this by setting net.inet6.ip6.accept_rtadv: 1 using sysctl, however we receive packet loss on our interface using ipv6. (as seen here: »i.imgur.com/zsqmA.png)

Does anyone have any experience setting up ipv6 using a freeBSD gateway?


brassy

join:2004-01-09
Brantford, ON
Isnt rtsol only supposed to be run on ipv6 hosts and not the router?

Im running freebsd and use rtadvd, and all my hosts get an ipv6 address and ping fine.

net.inet6.ip6.forwarding=1, I think thats the only sysctl variable I set.. in fact:

net.inet6.ip6.accept_rtadv: 0

roast

join:2011-07-21
H0H0H0

1 edit
reply to TSI Gabe
said by TSI Gabe:

I've looked at getting HWICs as well for at home. But they are so damn expensive. Can't justify spending 500$ per card for home use...

Yeah, ADSL2+ HWICS are still too expensive. The problem is the older ISR's really can't push a lot of traffic through so by the time HWICs are "affordable" the routers we'll be using are severely outdated and pretty much useless if you (edit: if you can!) saturate your connection...

roast

join:2011-07-21
H0H0H0
reply to mattvmotas
said by mattvmotas:

I've been pretty happy with my 1841 WIC1-ADSL setup. Very stable. Just wish I had an HWIC so I could get the higher DSL packages when they hit my area.

The 1841 falls flat on its face using dual stack. Once you start pushing some ipv6 data through the router, the cpu pins at 100%... I will say, the WIC-ADSL card is superb though and fantastic for a 5MB DSL connection without ipv6.

mattvmotas
Premium
join:2010-09-04
Amherstburg, ON
said by roast:

The 1841 falls flat on its face using dual stack. Once you start pushing some ipv6 data through the router, the cpu pins at 100%... I will say, the WIC-ADSL card is superb though and fantastic for a 5MB DSL connection without ipv6.

Not true, I have dual stack and have had no issues at all. I see no CPU issues on the router and I have used it to externally access servers on the inside using IPv6. I even have v6 enabled on all my internal clients.
--
Matt

roast

join:2011-07-21
H0H0H0
said by mattvmotas:

Not true, I have dual stack and have had no issues at all. I see no CPU issues on the router and I have used it to externally access servers on the inside using IPv6. I even have v6 enabled on all my internal clients.

What kind of throughput are you pushing? IIRC, at 5Mbps of ipv6 traffic I was using 90% cpu...

mattvmotas
Premium
join:2010-09-04
Amherstburg, ON
said by roast:

What kind of throughput are you pushing? IIRC, at 5Mbps of ipv6 traffic I was using 90% cpu...

I get full 7Mbps on my line, I have never tried to get the full amount of IPv6 only though. I will have to set that up and let you know.
--
Matt

hacim1

join:2004-05-04
Chicago, IL
reply to TSI Gabe
is the tomato build in the original post the latest, or are there newer ones available?

jam_bongo

join:2002-07-17
Toronto, ON
the latest builds of Toastman's tomato build's support single line MLPPP

bgm

join:2010-11-02
Montreal, QC
reply to TSI Gabe
I was a bit surprised to see my city borough and postcode in my "whois" information for the netblock that was assigned to me. When I e-mailed dnsadmin@, I was told that since it's a beta service, we cannot change any dns/record information.

Does anyone know why the postcode is made public? I only found this old unresolved thread about the issue:
»whois info for Teksavvy IPv6 addresses

In terms of protecting our privacy, this is really not ideal.

Other than that, the service works well!

I configured it on my Debian router at home and wrote a short howto in french:
»www.bidon.ca/fr/random/2012-03-1···e-debian

In short, if you have a router which does IP forwarding, which is the normal way to handle traffic (net.ipv6.conf.all.forwarding=1 in /etc/sysctl.conf), your router will not accept 'route advertisements' (RA). You will have to assign an IP from the /56 to your router, and setup a default route to the ppp0 device. Then configure radvd to distribute IPs to your local network (ex: 2607:f2c0:f00f:aa00::/64, if your block assigned was 2607:f2c0:f00f:aa00::/56, where 2607:f2c0:f00f:aa00::/64 is the first subnetwork you can allocate, from aa00 to aaff ).

Kujo__

join:2002-07-18

1 recommendation

reply to TSI Gabe
To those that have the WRT54GL router, and are looking for a newer tomato firmware that supports Ipv6, I highly recommend the "tomato-K26-1.28.7821MIPSR1-Toastman-ND-MiniIPv6.trx" mod found at »www.4shared.com/dir/v1BuINP3/Toa···lds.html.

It's very stable.


scruffy

join:2007-07-24
Canada
reply to TSI Gabe
*originally posted in Teksavvy Direct, but was told to poste in IPv6 forum for all IPv6 issues*

The PPPOE login I got after posting an IPv6 request in the direct forums only gets a dynamic IPv4 address. Is this normal?

I tried both in Linux and Windows. In Windows, if I leave IPv6 and IPv4 enabled on the PPPOE connection, I get a dynamic IPv4 address, and a link-local (fe80) IPv6 address. If I remove IPv4 from the connection properties, leaving only IPv6, the PPPOE connection fails while authenticating.

I used to be able to connect just fine with this IPv6 login up until I upgraded my account to DSL 12 service and TSI shuffled my logins around (asked me to change logins 2-3 times for my main pppoe account), and my IPv6 login hasn't worked since then.

Personally, unless the connection procedures have changed since then, I believe my IPv6 login was probably messed up by TSI, but they refused to help me in the direct forums, stating I should post about this issue here...

Any help or tips would be appreciated! Thanks!

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 edit
said by scruffy:

I tried both in Linux and Windows. In Windows, if I leave IPv6 and IPv4 enabled on the PPPOE connection, I get a dynamic IPv4 address, and a link-local (fe80) IPv6 address. If I remove IPv4 from the connection properties, leaving only IPv6, the PPPOE connection fails while authenticating.

I can't comment on the failure with a IPv6-only setup for PPP. You would need to get some debug logs from your Linux system to see if the connection is reset from TSI's side or from your side.
What you describe for the v4 address and v6 address is expected and how PPP works with IPv6.


scruffy

join:2007-07-24
Canada

1 recommendation

Well, I didn't change anything on my side. The problem only showed up when I upgraded to DSL12 and Teksavvy shuffled my login ID's 2-3 times.

Originally, my IPv6 login was user@hsiservice.net, and my IPv6 IP would get auto-negotiated automatically upon connecting. My IPv4 login w/ static IP was user@dslinternet.ca

When I upgraded to DSL12, Teksavvy told me to use "useratdslinternet.ca@teksavvy.com" to login for PPPoE, however, this was a dynamic IPv4. I called them back to let them know I no longer had my IPv4 static IP. They "fixed" it and said to now login with "user@hsiservice.net" (which used to be my IPv6 login), however, this still didn't have my old static IPv4 address, so I called them back and they finally fixed my IPv4 static IP and told me to login with what was my static IPv4 login originally (user@dslinternet.ca). This fixed my IPv4 static IP problem.

However, since that day, my IPv6 no longer works. Most likely, when they shuffled my login accounts around while trying to fix my static IPv4 issue, they probably removed my IPv6 option/setting from my account. HOWEVER, I can't get anyone to confirm or look into this because I keep getting friggin stonewalled both on the phone and in the Teksavvy Direct forums by reps saying "IPv6 is not supported. Ask in the IPv6 forums."

It's really annoying because it worked seamlessly for months before that, and it's probably just a checkbox they removed somewhere but it seems nobody can be bothered to look.


Mersault

join:2007-10-26
Toronto, ON

1 recommendation

Actually, I get the distinct impression that this isn't a checkbox anywhere, which is where the problem is and why this is still a beta. They have the basic technical infrastructure, but I suspect they are still working on the internal toolset to be updated to support IPv6. Right now IPv6 is probably added manually to accounts, which is why it's a bit of a crapshoot depending on who does it. Keep in mind that while the old knowledgable TSI team still exists they're a bit diluted among the number of newer, greener team members they've had to bring on lately.

Growing pains are good pains, in the end, but it does show sometimes.


Daxx

@teksavvy.com
reply to TSI Gabe
My router has gotten an IPv6 address but its using an address from the /64 address space for it's internet IP as well as it has no DNS server listed. Addresses are not being handed out to the PCs inside my network.

Router is set up to automatic IPv6 (native) mode. Am I doing something wrong here or was my account set up wrong?

mattvmotas
Premium
join:2010-09-04
Amherstburg, ON
The standard for IPv6 is to assign the router interface IP statically.

said by Daxx :

My router has gotten an IPv6 address but its using an address from the /64 address space for it's internet IP as well as it has no DNS server listed. Addresses are not being handed out to the PCs inside my network.

Router is set up to automatic IPv6 (native) mode. Am I doing something wrong here or was my account set up wrong?

--
Matt