|reply to squircle |
Re: 5242E IPv6 Capable ?
said by squircle:There is no need to depend on Bell for IPv6, some GAS-ISPs are already offering dual-stack on DSL, all you need is to put your IPv4-only in bridged mode ("dumb modem") and use an IPv6-capable router behind it to handle dual-stack PPPoE... or without router, an OS with dual-stack support in their PPPoE dialer.
I hope Bell hurries up and deploys (or at least starts testing) IPv6. It's the incumbents that will define the IPv6 rollout in Canada.
TSI subscribers have had the option of signing up for TSI's IPv6 "beta" for two years, maybe more. I started using their IPv6 as a free throttling bypass alternative when MLPPP became an extra-fee option... seemed to be working fine provided the torrents I was downloading had some fast IPv6 peers/seeds, which rarely was the case.
said by InvalidError:I know, I was one of the first. However, it's up to the incumbent providers to ensure that their networks are IPv6. You can't just have IPv6 as an opt-in option for those in the know. I guarantee that the vast majority of Bell, Cogeco, Rogers, Eastlink, Telus etc. subscribers either don't know or don't care what IPv6 is, and they don't see the need for it. It has to happen smoothly, and it has to be the default. Dual-stack needs to be available to everybody. I think the success of the v6 rollout can be measured by customer feedback. If the phones aren't ringing off the hook with "my internet is broken!", it'll be successful.
TSI subscribers have had the option of signing up for TSI's IPv6 "beta" for two years, maybe more.
Right now, one of my ISPs is Cogeco, and all of my v6 packets travel through a Hurricane Electric 6in4 tunnel through TorIX. My v6 latency, load on my router and v6 speed (because of fragmentation for its v4 travel and whatnot) would be greatly reduced. If Cogeco's network was native IPv6, I wouldn't have to tunnel and run into these problems.