dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1
share rss forum feed
« Service in Richmond Hill[Outages] out in London »
page: 1 · 2 · next
This is a sub-selection from IPv6 beta

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 edit
reply to SimplePanda

Re: IPv6 beta

said by SimplePanda:

Not really sure I can imagine the end-user scenario for 99.99% of residential customers where multiple subnets are required... and realistically this won't change anytime soon. Even as people add devices to their LAN most people don't even consider what IP is never mind bothering to neatly segment their network.

Perhaps 'insane' is the wring word. "Unnecessary in almost all situations" is probably a better description.

The 99.99% is exaggerated and they still need to cover users who need the address space. One size allocation though could cover everyones needs though with a /60 or even a /56 is fine too. There are more than 0.01% users using the v6 beta service now would require greater than one /64 never mind when they rollout to their whole customer base. Makes it easier for TSI and the users.


SimplePanda
Go Habs Go
Premium
join:2003-09-22
Toronto, ON
Reviews:
·Rogers Hi-Speed

1 edit
said by 34764170:

said by SimplePanda:

Not really sure I can imagine the end-user scenario for 99.99% of residential customers where multiple subnets are required... and realistically this won't change anytime soon. Even as people add devices to their LAN most people don't even consider what IP is never mind bothering to neatly segment their network.

Perhaps 'insane' is the wring word. "Unnecessary in almost all situations" is probably a better description.

The 99.99% is exaggerated and they still need to cover users who need the address space. One size allocation though could cover everyones needs though with a /60 or even a /56 is fine too. There are more than 0.01% users using the v6 beta service now would require greater than one /64 never mind when they rollout to their whole customer base. Makes it easier for TSI and the users.

I was really more trying to say "the vast majority". There aren't many residential DSL customers in the customer base at large who "require" 256 subnets (or even 16).

I'd also suggest that rolling it out to the whole customer base will decrease the percentage of people who need more than a single /64, rather than increase it. People who want multiple subnets are likely already in the beta.

I suppose it's all moot in that TSI -can- hand out /56's en masse if they so choose. It just seems like wasteful overallocation to me.


Mersault

join:2007-10-26
Toronto, ON
said by SimplePanda:

It just seems like wasteful overallocation to me.

It's a gross overallocation for the way we consume the internet *at present*. Can you really safely say the same for 15 years from now? Sure, you only have a few computers at home, but once integration is better and the internet embeds itself ever deeper into your house, it's going to change. A subnet for all my lighting fixtures makes sense, for instance.

Also, what if the one-IP-per-device template we use right now starts to break down? Lots of communication within a device happens over the loopback interface, I wouldn't be surprised to find that as different devices within the home need to talk to each other that they don't just start giving IPs to parts of devices. The DAC in your home audio system will have it's own IP, and your remote can talk directly to just that component.

With IPs no longer a constraining resource, I'm interested to see some true innovation in networking in the home.


squircle

join:2009-06-23
Oakville, ON
said by Mersault:

I wouldn't be surprised to find that as different devices within the home need to talk to each other that they don't just start giving IPs to parts of devices.

But that's what fe80::/10 is for...

rev

join:2011-12-14
Toronto, ON
said by squircle:

But that's what fe80::/10 is for...

»tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3879
"Deprecating Site Local Addresses"

Heard there was a vote recently (jan 2012) that was in favour of it, I read it in passing and am too lazy to get a citation, so grain of salt please.

I for one, do not want my smart shelves on a site-local address.


squircle

join:2009-06-23
Oakville, ON
said by rev:

said by squircle:

But that's what fe80::/10 is for...

»tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3879
"Deprecating Site Local Addresses"

Heard there was a vote recently (jan 2012) that was in favour of it, I read it in passing and am too lazy to get a citation, so grain of salt please.

I for one, do not want my smart shelves on a site-local address.

You're right, however, RFC4291 (section 2.5.6) requires IPv6 devices to have link-local addresses. So you'd see why I'd propose that. If you have smart-home stuff (for example), there's no reason why they need globally-routable IPv6 addresses (and, really, I'd prefer my lights and security system etc. not to be globally accessible, but rather from a home automation controller with some authentication that is globally accessible). Just my opinion.


Mersault

join:2007-10-26
Toronto, ON
Honestly, a dependency on private address space leads to lazy security. The difference between private addresses and a default deny firewall is not much, except I'll bet that in most instances the default deny firewall will be more secure.


squircle

join:2009-06-23
Oakville, ON
Well, I'm not trying to say it's for security, but I don't really want to argue. I know it's an IPv4 mindset, but do things that will never communicate outside of the LAN really need globally-routable IP addresses?

I'll shut up now.


theboyk

join:2004-10-04
Toronto, ON
reply to Mersault
said by Mersault:

Honestly, a dependency on private address space leads to lazy security. The difference between private addresses and a default deny firewall is not much, except I'll bet that in most instances the default deny firewall will be more secure.

Are you talking about a firewall on the router between the WAN and LAN, or individual FWs on each device?


Mersault

join:2007-10-26
Toronto, ON
said by theboyk:

said by Mersault:

Honestly, a dependency on private address space leads to lazy security. The difference between private addresses and a default deny firewall is not much, except I'll bet that in most instances the default deny firewall will be more secure.

Are you talking about a firewall on the router between the WAN and LAN, or individual FWs on each device?

Yes.


theboyk

join:2004-10-04
Toronto, ON
Yes, to both?

mactalla

join:2008-02-19
kudos:1
What's important is that you have a wall between the source of possible trouble and the destination where you don't want said trouble. One wall, two walls, where the wall is, doesn't matter.

The router is a choke point between you and the internet. So if you absolutely trust everything on your LAN side (including possibly weak WiFi) then a firewall on your router is going to be just as good as a firewall on each device. This is no different than IPv4.


theboyk

join:2004-10-04
Toronto, ON
I'm more thinking of work where I have 40+ computers, 5 servers, 4 printers, etc. and right now I trust my Cisco (enterprise class) security device for that wall. And I'm just trying to figure out how to deal with IPv6 where all of these devices have accessible IPs. Don't want to manage firewalls on all the computers, and some devices, that wouldnt even be possible. Just starting to look into this whole thing, so lots to learn...


Mersault

join:2007-10-26
Toronto, ON
Well, it's pretty simple. Block everything. Then, selectively open for only the traffic you know you want. The difference between a default-deny firewall and NAT - for security purposes - is nil. And I would argue that the firewall is superior in that it forces you to at least think about it and consider it.

scbenoit

join:2012-01-28
Barrie, ON
Hey Folks

Great discussion here, I especially appreciated "roast's" July 2011 post on Cisco config. Where and how do I request my IPv6 user credentials, when I signed up and asked for IPv6 I was given one PPPoE user name and password (an @dslinternet.ca) and only a /64 IPv6 address. It appears I require an hsiservice account and my /56 still.

I understand this is a beta so didn't expect them to have the details - just need to know where I should be asking ?

Thanks

Steve

scbenoit

join:2012-01-28
Barrie, ON
TSI Joel set me up, thanks, I'm good to go

Now to test my rtr's and cfgs - Cisco 1841 w/DSL, Dlink 615 with original 3.2x firmware, and a Juniper SSG5

Thanks

Steve

34764170

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

Now to test my rtr's and cfgs - Cisco 1841 w/DSL, Dlink 615 with original 3.2x firmware, and a Juniper SSG5

I'd check for any newer firmware for the equipment mentioned above.


theboyk

join:2004-10-04
Toronto, ON
reply to scbenoit
said by scbenoit:

Now to test my rtr's and cfgs - Cisco 1841

I'd be interested in hearing how this goes. What are the details on your 1841? What IOS are you running, etc.?

I'm going to need to upgrade my 1841, which I haven't been super happy with, to support IPv6 and just trying to decide if I'm going to upgrade it or go with another security device (been thinking about switching back to a SonicWALL, but that's another story).

mattvmotas
Premium
join:2010-09-04
Amherstburg, ON
reply to scbenoit
said by scbenoit:

TSI Joel set me up, thanks, I'm good to go

Now to test my rtr's and cfgs - Cisco 1841 w/DSL, Dlink 615 with original 3.2x firmware, and a Juniper SSG5

Thanks

Steve

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.
--
Matt


TSI Gabe
Router of Packets
Premium,VIP
join:2007-01-03
Gatineau, QC
kudos:7
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...


theboyk

join:2004-10-04
Toronto, ON
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:
·Rogers Hi-Speed

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:
·Rogers Hi-Speed

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.