dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
162066
share rss forum feed

notfred

join:2012-09-15
reply to TSI Gabe

Re: IPv6 beta

I'm not sure that you want Static IPv6, see if there is an option for IPv6 autoconfiguration (may be labelled IPv6 router solicitation) or PPP IPv6 or IPv6CP. This should fill in the WAN stuff automatically.

LAN IPv6 Prefix: Put the /56 address here
LAN Prefix Length: 64
LAN IPv6 Address: Put the /56 address here but end with ::1 this time

You can leave the IPv6 DNS empty, Teksavvy's v4 DNS return v6 results, or you could put in the Teksavvy ones, HE ones or Google ones if you want.

Router Advertisement: Enable - this should then mean that the computers can now use IPv6.

marcel31

join:2013-02-23
Mississauga, ON
OK when I fill it in the way you say I get a message "not a valid IP address!"

marcel31

join:2013-02-23
Mississauga, ON
I am not being successful at setting it up at all, I'll give it one more try next weekend and then I'll just give up on this. If anyone has any experience with ASUS router setup for use with IPv6 I would appreciate any suggestions.

I've been reading up about IPv6 tunneling through TunnelBroker using ASUS router apparently that works fine but I am assuming that that is not the same thing.

It kind of sucks to have a router that's suppose to be IPv6 ready and I can't get it going with my ISP.

notfred

join:2012-09-15
reply to TSI Gabe
I just pulled up the manual for that router from the ASUS web site and it doesn't even list the options available for IPv6. Page 78 just says contact your ISP, like Teksavvy is meant to know what to click on in the ASUS web interface when ASUS won't even document.

ASUS, your manual sucks!


SimplePanda
Go Habs Go
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
reply to TSI Gabe
Anyone noticed the performance of the hsiservice.net logins is poor lately?

Here in High Park (Toronto) logging in via @teksavvy.com = 8ms pings to google.ca and 25/10 perfect.

Disconnecting, logging in via @hsiservice.net with IPV6 and google.ca (over IPV4) is 60-120ms with lots of judder and bandwidth is closer to 8Mbps down (and wildly variable and equally degraded ups).

I can reproduce this 100% of the time right now.


squircle

join:2009-06-23
Oakville, ON

1 recommendation

It's not the login, it's the AGAS links. I know they're doing some maintenance today and the load balancing is either not available or acting strangely. Keep reconnecting until you end up on a non-congested link.


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

1 recommendation

said by squircle:

It's not the login, it's the AGAS links. I know they're doing some maintenance today and the load balancing is either not available or acting strangely. Keep reconnecting until you end up on a non-congested link.

Has been an issue for me for literally 2 weeks now, despite maybe a dozen or more disconnects / reconnects.


squircle

join:2009-06-23
Oakville, ON
Same here. There's another thread about the AGAS problems; I've been having 200+ms first-hop ping times for weeks, slow speeds...

Anyways, I'm assuming that's why they're fiddling with the AGAS links today (to hopefully resolve the problem).


dalkeith74

@teksavvy.com
Affected yonge/401 as well. Seems to get worse in evenings.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to squircle
said by squircle:

Same here. There's another thread about the AGAS problems; I've been having 200+ms first-hop ping times for weeks, slow speeds...

That would be this thread:
»[DSL] Network congestion tonight?

TSI was saying they saw nothing wrong from their end (no single link near max) but I get 100-300ms ping and jitter all over the place with @hsiservice.net while on the other hand I get almost normal pingtest results with @teksavvy.com

Off-peak, both @teksavvy.com and @hsiservice.net give me 23-26ms ping and 0-2ms jitter.
During peak, @teksavvy.com gives me 35-65ms ping and 4-8ms jitter while @hsiservice.net gives me 100-330ms ping and 10-130ms jitter.

@hsiservice.net is effectively unusable for VoIP during peak hours.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

said by InvalidError:

TSI was saying they saw nothing wrong from their end (no single link near max) but I get 100-300ms ping and jitter all over the place with @hsiservice.net while on the other hand I get almost normal pingtest results with @teksavvy.com

The necessity for separate logins should have been eliminated a year ago at the latest.

notfred

join:2012-09-15
reply to InvalidError
I'm seeing exactly what InvalidError reports, see my posts in that thread mentioned. Switching back and forth between the two logins is showing the v6 login is showing congestion that the v4 doesn't have.


squircle

join:2009-06-23
Oakville, ON
reply to InvalidError
Oddly enough, I get quite bad performance on both logins, but it's quite a bit better with the IPv4-only login than the @hsiservice.net login. Strange; I hadn't noticed the performance discrepancies before.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

1 recommendation

reply to 34764170
said by 34764170:

The necessity for separate logins should have been eliminated a year ago at the latest.

Why would they ever want to do that? TSI has different domains because each domain targets a separate subset of their ERX pool. Everyone has a standard @teksavvy.com login and extra logins for whatever add-on features like static/MLPPP and IPv6.

One other advantage of this is if one domain/ERX is borked, subscribers can switch to other logins on their account to verify whether or not it is a login/ERX-specific issue.

Even if Bell implemented a method for TSI to steer session toward specific AHSSPIs based on account features and load balance to make them land on the ERXes that support those features, they would likely keep the multiple domains so people can use alternate domains for troubleshooting and other purposes.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
said by InvalidError:

Why would they ever want to do that? TSI has different domains because each domain targets a separate subset of their ERX pool. Everyone has a standard @teksavvy.com login and extra logins for whatever add-on features like static/MLPPP and IPv6.

I was talking about for v6 only, not all of the login realms.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

1 recommendation

said by 34764170:

I was talking about for v6 only, not all of the login realms.

Since TSI's IPv6 logins are running on only the subset of ERXes on which IPv6 routing is enabled due to being BETA (as in "not officially supported but works properly most of the time"), I doubt TSI would want to force BETA stuff on everyone.

If you meant that as in "IPv6 should have been standard by now, not BETA" then yes, I agree it should have become a standard stable feature and not require special login a long time ago.

Half-hearted (and often nonexistent) support and pushing from consumer hardware manufacturers is making the IPv6 transition take a lot longer than it should.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

said by InvalidError:

Since TSI's IPv6 logins are running on only the subset of ERXes on which IPv6 routing is enabled due to being BETA (as in "not officially supported but works properly most of the time"), I doubt TSI would want to force BETA stuff on everyone.

If you meant that as in "IPv6 should have been standard by now, not BETA" then yes, I agree it should have become a standard stable feature and not require special login a long time ago.

Half-hearted (and often nonexistent) support and pushing from consumer hardware manufacturers is making the IPv6 transition take a lot longer than it should.

That was what I was getting at. After 3 years it shouldn't be beta anymore. It shouldn't be using a separate set of logins on AFAIK separate gear. Just add v6 to the existing teksavvy.com logins and whatever the realm was for static/MLPPP. For the teksavvy.com realm users (as in most of them) that would mean running on the E320 kit.

This would also resolve the long standing complaint about not being able to have IPv6 and static IP/subnets on the same login.

On top of that they should be utilizing DHCPv6-PD for prefix delegation to the CPE. This would eliminate the need for manual configuration for most users.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
said by 34764170:

On top of that they should be utilizing DHCPv6-PD for prefix delegation to the CPE. This would eliminate the need for manual configuration for most users.

Windows seems to have no problem getting a working IPv6 address when its dialer handles PPPoE when I tried that so there seems to be some auto-configuration mechanism in there... IPv6CP/SLAAC?

notfred

join:2012-09-15
Yes, there is IPv6CP and SLAAC running, that doesn't fix the problem brad refers to.

DHCPv6-PD is for when a gateway router brings up the PPPoE link. It will use the IPv6CP link local information and the SLAAC for the global IPs on the link. However it needs an additional IPv6 prefix to hand out to the machines behind the gateway router. This is IPv6 so it's a real global prefix and not the equivalent of the RFC1918 192.168.x.x that gets handed out in a NAT IPv4 scenario. The problem is how to tell the gateway router what this prefix is. Currently it is by hand, DHCPv6-PD solves this problem.


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

1 recommendation

reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:

said by 34764170:

I was talking about for v6 only, not all of the login realms.

Since TSI's IPv6 logins are running on only the subset of ERXes on which IPv6 routing is enabled due to being BETA (as in "not officially supported but works properly most of the time"), I doubt TSI would want to force BETA stuff on everyone.

If you meant that as in "IPv6 should have been standard by now, not BETA" then yes, I agree it should have become a standard stable feature and not require special login a long time ago.

Half-hearted (and often nonexistent) support and pushing from consumer hardware manufacturers is making the IPv6 transition take a lot longer than it should.

At this point it's really not consumer manufacturers that are the hold up anymore. Most of the D-Link / Cisco / Asus routers you can buy at FS/BB/Staples all support IPV6 without issue now. Apple has supported it for a while on DHCP/Cable based connections (native IPV6 on PPPoE is still broken alas).

Google, Facebook, Youtube, Netflix and Akamai are all pushing IPV6 when asked for it now.

Carriers are basically the hold-up at this point. If Rogers started doing native IPV6 on their cable network tomorrow the usage of IPV6 on their network would probably hit double digit% on the first day I'd guess, just from people who have it enabled / supported by default and aren't getting addresses.

Given that -everyone- seems to peer through HE right now I'd guess that Rogers isn't sure that their peering can handle a wide deployment though. TekSavvy is maybe in the same boat.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

1 recommendation

said by SimplePanda:

At this point it's really not consumer manufacturers that are the hold up anymore.

The point was that we should have been at this point at least half a decade ago. If consumer hardware and devices had started supporting IPv6 10 years ago, the transition would be practically over by now.

Today, many devices (tablets, smartphones, smart appliances, etc.) are still IPv4-only.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

reply to SimplePanda
said by SimplePanda:

Carriers are basically the hold-up at this point. If Rogers started doing native IPV6 on their cable network tomorrow the usage of IPV6 on their network would probably hit double digit% on the first day I'd guess, just from people who have it enabled / supported by default and aren't getting addresses.

Given that -everyone- seems to peer through HE right now I'd guess that Rogers isn't sure that their peering can handle a wide deployment though. TekSavvy is maybe in the same boat.

I am not sure about double digit % depending on how much of their coverage area is upgraded to enable v6 but they sure would have more than enough users out of the gate. Either way it still provides real users with a diverse collection of CPE in a real world environment via their network.

TSI is AFAIK running v6 on all of their transit links to Peer 1/Limelight/TATA and Hurricane so capacity is not an issue. The incumbent carriers have transit capacity now and if they needed to turn up sessions through existing links currently carrying v4 traffic only is fairly easy and straightforward. It's just rolling out service at the edge that is the real issue.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:

The point was that we should have been at this point at least half a decade ago. If consumer hardware and devices had started supporting IPv6 10 years ago, the transition would be practically over by now.

Today, many devices (tablets, smartphones, smart appliances, etc.) are still IPv4-only.

Unfortunately so true.

Although that is true there is also a good percentage of tablets, smartphones and some appliances that do have IPv6 support as well especially if based on iOS, Android, Blackberry 10/Tablet OS's, Symbian, Windows Phone 8.

Skype not support v6 yet is a pain. That is one of the most visible services still holding out.

I am also interested to see how Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft handle rolling out v6 for their consoles and online gaming especially with Wii U being out and PS4 / Xbox (Durango) coming out soon.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

1 recommendation

said by 34764170:

I am also interested to see how Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft handle rolling out v6 for their consoles and online gaming especially with Wii U being out and PS4 / Xbox (Durango) coming out soon.

Since much of it is a chicken-and-the-egg problem (ISPs/incumbents are being lazy implementing IPv6 because few consumer modem/routers/devices support it) and consumer equipment manufacturers were being lazy doing IPv6 because no ISP/incumbents/routers supported it, things should start running a lot more smoothly now that the first IPv6 chickens have hatched.

We have finally reached the stage where people at least starting to notice IPv6 as a checkbox feature (they may not know what it does but they do notice that router/service A advertises support while router/service B does not) when buying routers and some other devices or services.

I'm curious to see whether or not Sony and Microsoft will choose to check the box or not. Considering how many router-related problems IPv6 would eliminate, it would be a shame if they decided to skip it completely. (As in neither at launch nor future patch.)

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

said by InvalidError:

Since much of it is a chicken-and-the-egg problem (ISPs/incumbents are being lazy implementing IPv6 because few consumer modem/routers/devices support it) and consumer equipment manufacturers were being lazy doing IPv6 because no ISP/incumbents/routers supported it, things should start running a lot more smoothly now that the first IPv6 chickens have hatched.

We have finally reached the stage where people at least starting to notice IPv6 as a checkbox feature (they may not know what it does but they do notice that router/service A advertises support while router/service B does not) when buying routers and some other devices or services.

I'm curious to see whether or not Sony and Microsoft will choose to check the box or not. Considering how many router-related problems IPv6 would eliminate, it would be a shame if they decided to skip it completely. (As in neither at launch nor future patch.)

Well, ya, there were a lot of issues that needed to reach a certain point of maturity and availability whether it is OS stack support, apps, IP transit, CDN support, etc etc etc. but we're hitting a sweet spot where enough of these things have happened that the old excuses are nothing but excuses any more.

I doubt the consoles will have v6 enabled out of the box at this point but I'm betting that support or the framework for supporting v6 exists within the OS now and most likely games are using the AF independent network API as is done for UNIX/Windows apps now. The API would just do the right thing once the v6 stack is enabled with the underlying OS. I could see Nintendo (since Wii U is already out and AFAIK does not support v6) rolling out an update at the end of this year or early next and we'll see how PS4/Xbox goes.

Another area that will benefit greatly from IPv6 is VoIP. SIP is a total pain with NAT.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

1 recommendation

said by 34764170:

Another area that will benefit greatly from IPv6 is VoIP. SIP is a total pain with NAT.

The main reason for the pain is simply the requirement to keep an inbound port open on the accidental firewall created by NAT's IP:port S:D connection tracking: can't forward inbound until you know who to forward the traffic to.

You would run into many of the same problems with a basic IPv6 firewall that denies inbound by default much the same way NAT routers do.

As far as I can see, the main potential problem IPv6 does fix for VoIP and similar services is the potential confusion in a scenario where someone owns multiple SIP devices that attempt to connect to the same server while using the same inbound port. On IPv4, the router would have no way to know which client packets belong to since they all have the same signature. Letting UPnP pick the inbound port or configuring clients with different ports both solve this IPv4 problem - assuming the router and SIP client's UPnP implementations are both working properly... though this goes for the IPv6 firewall as well.


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

1 recommendation

reply to 34764170
said by 34764170:

Unfortunately so true.

Although that is true there is also a good percentage of tablets, smartphones and some appliances that do have IPv6 support as well especially if based on iOS, Android, Blackberry 10/Tablet OS's, Symbian, Windows Phone 8.

Skype not support v6 yet is a pain. That is one of the most visible services still holding out.

I am also interested to see how Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft handle rolling out v6 for their consoles and online gaming especially with Wii U being out and PS4 / Xbox (Durango) coming out soon.

iOS and Android both support V6 without issue, as does Windows 8 / Windows RT. That gets you pretty close to all tablets in the market.

Phone wise, same boat with the exception of pre-BB10 devices that still hold a few market percentage points. Obviously feature/non-smart phones aren't included in this but their general lack of IP connectivity makes that moot.

Same issue here as well though: carrier support is really the problem, at least in Canada. Verizon and T-Mobile are sending IPV6 over the air now, but nobody in Canada is to my knowledge. Rogers definitely is not, but that's no surprise considering Rogers can't even seem to keep their 6rd BR's up and running.

Console wise I don't expect Sony or Nintendo to be really -with it- on this issue given their lineage. Since the 360 (and theoretical 720) are Windows based I can see them getting V6 "for free" as part of the operating system stack, but Sony and Nintendo would have to bake V6 in by choice and I don't really see either of them having the foresight.


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

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:

said by SimplePanda:

At this point it's really not consumer manufacturers that are the hold up anymore.

The point was that we should have been at this point at least half a decade ago. If consumer hardware and devices had started supporting IPv6 10 years ago, the transition would be practically over by now.

Today, many devices (tablets, smartphones, smart appliances, etc.) are still IPv4-only.

No I totally agree with you on what the main point is. The movement to IPV6 should be far further along by now. Google is stating 1.14% of all of their traffic as of today:

»www.google.com/ipv6/statistics.html

This should be much higher by now.

re: tablets/smartphones etc - this is quite untrue. Basically all smartphones and tablets (which basically all run iOS or Android) support IPv6 natively and without issue.

Smart appliances are another issue but are relatively uncommon right now.


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

1 recommendation

reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:

said by 34764170:

Another area that will benefit greatly from IPv6 is VoIP. SIP is a total pain with NAT.

The main reason for the pain is simply the requirement to keep an inbound port open on the accidental firewall created by NAT's IP:port S:D connection tracking: can't forward inbound until you know who to forward the traffic to.

You would run into many of the same problems with a basic IPv6 firewall that denies inbound by default much the same way NAT routers do.

An additional portion of this problem is that there still isn't a very well defined port management system for IPV6 firewalls.

With V4 we have NAT-PMP and UPnP (gross) to handle this. V6 still doesn't really have a counterpart to tell the firewall to open ports as needed by opening/closing applications.

The port problem is compounded by address randomization on V6 networks by default in most OS's in SLAAC environments. DHCPv6 can solve this to some extent in that you can configure your router manually to always give your computer a specific address and then manually open ports needed but that's a pretty lousy solution compared to the relatively transparent operating of a NAT with PMP/UPnP support.

This is one area where Apple can show some real leadership - updating NAT-PMP to work well with IPv6 and really push it as a standard. Alas, Apple seems to care about 0% about IPv6, as evidenced by their V6 stack on OS X (happy eyeballs always on and can't be disabled) and their routers (PPPoE IPv6 completely unsupported).

Sigh.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

1 recommendation

reply to SimplePanda
said by SimplePanda:

re: tablets/smartphones etc - this is quite untrue. Basically all smartphones and tablets (which basically all run iOS or Android) support IPv6 natively and without issue.

While I have no doubt that Android devices should technically support IPv6 since they are based on the Linux kernel, their UIs do a very good job not making any mention of it if IPv6 is actually enabled on them.

What the OS supports is moot if vendors either do not include the hardware/connectors to use it or do not enable those features on their products... and this being Linux we are talking about, compiling a kernel without IPv6 support to save a few hundred KBs on the kernel and related support tools is always an option.