| reply to jcmh
Re: World IPv6 Day said by jcmh:If you can't get what you want over IPv6, then there's no point. There is a point: avoid the need for double-NAT at the ISP level, replacing it by a 4to6 gateway once ISPs get to the point where they might start having to put their subscribers on CG-NAT.
said by jcmh:As for CPE routers etc... Most of these problems can be fixed with firmware/software updates anyways. They may be upgradable/fixable but for now, many of them still require manual setup for IPv6 which is counter-productive for adoption. |
|
|
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | said by InvalidError:They may be upgradable/fixable but for now, many of them still require manual setup for IPv6 which is counter-productive for adoption.
You have to configure new CPE anyway.
Most of the manual setup I've seen is because ISPs do not have their side setup properly. TSI being one such ISP. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:Content is irrelevant, any content can travel just as easily over IPv4 and IPv6, IPv6 does not change anything fundamental there.
Lack of content and last mile ISP support are the biggest issues at the moment.
Having content provides a reason to actually enable the v6 Internet so to speak.
You need just enough content to get the ball rolling. Once IPv6 Launch day happens you'll see a much quicker rate of adoption. |
|
file
join:2011-03-29
Riverview, NB | Two major ones have embraced IPv6 - Facebook and Youtube. I access both over IPv6 these days without realizing it. |
|
| reply to brad
said by brad:You have to configure new CPE anyway. You do not need to manually setup IPv4 subnet, you get that from PPPoE or DHCP. With IPv6, many broadband routers only support manual setup.
said by brad:Most of the manual setup I've seen is because ISPs do not have their side setup properly. TSI being one such ISP. Automatic setup works fine with TSI IPv6 using Windows' dialer. Simply enable IPv6 in the dialer config and connect. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to file
said by file:Two major ones have embraced IPv6 - Facebook and Youtube. I access both over IPv6 these days without realizing it.
Facebook launched a bit early and this was only within the last two weeks to allow third party developers to work with said v6 support and v6 enable their apps.
YouTube is using a whitelist so who has access to YouTube even if they have v6 access now is quite limited. So at the moment you have to be using a resolver which has been whitelisted by Google and if that is the case you would have access to almost all of Google's web properties over v6 and not just YouTube (.e.g. GMail, Google search, Blogger, etc.) |
|
| reply to brad
said by brad:Lack of content and last mile ISP support are the biggest issues at the moment. On cable, sure. On DSL, PPPoE can tunnel IPv6 just as well as IPv4 without any intervention from the telephone company, only thing required is a 3rd-party ISP that supports PPPoE-IPv6.
Content-wise, I doubt we are going to see anything exclusive to IPv6 and even if there was, with 6to4/4to6 bridges would render that mostly moot.
said by brad:Once IPv6 Launch day happens you'll see a much quicker rate of adoption. Technically, IPv6 was launched over 12 years ago and I have been using it for over three years myself. Its market adoption is definitely slow but it is far too late to talk about a "launch" of IPv6 itself since it has been included in every desktop and laptop sold since Windows Vista's launch. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:You do not need to manually setup IPv4 subnet, you get that from PPPoE or DHCP. With IPv6, many broadband routers only support manual setup.
The comment was about configuring the router period. When you buy the router for the first time it has to be setup. Especially so if you're using PPPoE.
Yes and they have to be manually setup because the ISP hasn't setup their end properly.
said by InvalidError:Automatic setup works fine with TSI IPv6 using Windows' dialer. Simply enable IPv6 in the dialer config and connect.
Exactly. An end host vs a router. Your host is using an address configured via RA. The routers need DHCPv6-PD.
That doesn't change what I said. TSI still needs to fix their end of things. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:On cable, sure. On DSL, PPPoE can tunnel IPv6 just as well as IPv4 without any intervention from the telephone company, only thing required is a 3rd-party ISP that supports PPPoE-IPv6.
Content-wise, I doubt we are going to see anything exclusive to IPv6 and even if there was, with 6to4/4to6 bridges would render that mostly moot.
I was not talking about TSI. Of course it is easier to provision v6 over a DSL network using PPPoE but the issue is ISPs enabling it period and that means going further than TSI has. Not all DSL networks use PPPoE. TSI is pretty disappointing in this regard so far.
The content does not have to be exclusive to IPv6. That is completely irrelevant. The vast majority will be dual-stack to start off with. It isn't moot either. Gateways like that result in worse performance, additional points of failure and having to invest in more hardware and at the scale they're working at the hardware is far from inexpensive. 6to4 is awful and needs to die a quick death.
said by InvalidError:Technically, IPv6 was launched over 12 years ago and I have been using it for over three years myself. Its market adoption is definitely slow but it is far too late to talk about a "launch" of IPv6 itself since it has been included in every desktop and laptop sold since Windows Vista's launch.
As an open source developer I have been using it for 10 years now. By launch it is meant to be launched to the greater public. Simply shipping v6 capable OS, software, etc. does not magically result in all of this stuff actually being utilized.
There have been a lot of issues for why v6 hasn't gone anywhere from OS stacks, third-party app support, ISP / transit provider support and so on. But all areas are starting to hit a sweet spot. You don't need everyone and everything to support it but to hit a certain threshold. |
|
| reply to brad
said by brad:Exactly. An end host vs a router. Your host is using an address configured via RA. The routers need DHCPv6-PD. Route Advertisement / SLAAC works just as well for routers and hosts since if you advertise a /64 to a host, it will simply fill the remaining 64 bits using SLAAC if enabled, which it is by default. A router would simply use the subnet address to generate its WAN address (usually whatever::1) and either re-advertise the subnet on the LAN or start allocating addresses from that IPv6 subnet using local DHCP.
Routers do not need to receive their IPv6 allocation through DHCPv6. All the IPv6 papers I remember reading say RA/SLAAC prefix delegation is the preferred method in the absence of specific reasons to use DHCP such as wanting to manage static IPv6 addresses using DHCP. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | said by InvalidError:Route Advertisement / SLAAC works just as well for routers and hosts since if you advertise a /64 to a host, it will simply fill the remaining 64 bits using SLAAC if enabled, which it is by default. A router would simply use the subnet address to generate its WAN address (usually whatever::1) and either re-advertise the subnet on the LAN or start allocating addresses from that IPv6 subnet using local DHCP.
Routers do not need to receive their IPv6 allocation through DHCPv6. All the IPv6 papers I remember reading say RA/SLAAC prefix delegation is the preferred method in the absence of specific reasons to use DHCP such as wanting to manage static IPv6 addresses using DHCP.
I'll have to track this down to see if this has changed but the spec does not allow for RA on a router. You're not supposed to use RA on a host with more than one interface. Ya I know that's kind of strange nowadays and even end hosts can have more than one interface nowadays but that's how it was defined.
Also I didn't mean the /64 for the PPP interface. I was referring to the /56 or whatever prefix for behind the router. AFAIK RA does not propagate such prefixes anyway and that's why I'm mentioning DHCPv6-PD. |
|
 sm5w2
join:2004-10-13
St Thomas, ON | reply to jcmh
> > I would not want to ever be handicapped by being assigned a static IP or subnet
> > (regardless if IPv4 or v6).
>
> Explain to me how you are being handicapped by a static IP subnet?
I do a lot of free downloading from file lockers. I can hit them more often when I change my IP address between downloads. |
|
 GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20 | said by sm5w2:I do a lot of free downloading from file lockers. I can hit them more often when I change my IP address between downloads. This is an abusive use of their services that are against their terms of service and possibly the law. This is not a legitimate reason to need a static IP.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org |
|
jcmh
join:2008-12-13
Ottawa, ON | reply to sm5w2
said by sm5w2:> > I would not want to ever be handicapped by being assigned a static IP or subnet
> > (regardless if IPv4 or v6).
>
> Explain to me how you are being handicapped by a static IP subnet?
I do a lot of free downloading from file lockers. I can hit them more often when I change my IP address between downloads.
I invite you to read the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) »www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html
Those are the rules all North American providers must follow with regards to IP address assignments and management.
Your need for multiple different dynamic addresses on-demand is not justifiable. |
|
jcmh
join:2008-12-13
Ottawa, ON | reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:said by brad:Lack of content and last mile ISP support are the biggest issues at the moment. On cable, sure. On DSL, PPPoE can tunnel IPv6 just as well as IPv4 without any intervention from the telephone company, only thing required is a 3rd-party ISP that supports PPPoE-IPv6. Content-wise, I doubt we are going to see anything exclusive to IPv6 and even if there was, with 6to4/4to6 bridges would render that mostly moot. I don't see why you're talking about tunnels here...
Tunnels are a temporary solution for people without NATIVE IPv6. They are a means to access IPv6 networks over an IPv4 connection and are only a temporary solution while IPv6 deployments happen.
Also, you're mixing OSI layers. PPPoE (PPP) is layer 2 (data link).
IPv4 and IPv6 (Or any other IP based protocol) are Layer 3.
Tunnels also work on layers 3-4.
So regardless of what type of technology you have (cable, dsl, ethernet, sattelite) Any IP protocol can work, provided the upstreams have it configured properly and support it to their end-users (And of course, end-users set it up properly). |
|
| said by jcmh:Also, you're mixing OSI layers. PPPoE (PPP) is layer 2 (data link). I'm not mixing layers, you got mixed up and misread what I wrote just because I did not bother to spell out what is on which layer.
PPPoE/L2TP which is L2.5 and a form of tunnel that carries L3 protocols over ATM or Ethernet which are L2. That's why PPPoE DSL can natively carry IPv6 regardless of what the telco does.
As for the rest of what I said about IPv4/IPv6 interoperability, what I meant there is that whichever native IP you get, transition technologies that will likely remain deployed for decades to come will allow anyone to reach anything regardless of which IP format they are on as long as auto-configuration data for whichever relevant tunnel is available. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to jcmh
said by jcmh:If you can't get what you want over IPv6, then there's no point.
Unless you want to force end users to be dual stacked until the end of time. The migration path should be to eventually end up with only IPv6. No sense doing it if the end result doesn't get rid of one protocol.
As for CPE routers etc... Most of these problems can be fixed with firmware/software updates anyways. It's not like CPE routers are ASIC based anyways.
Linux, Windows and Mac OS X have supported v6 in a stable fashion for years now.
Bell, Rogers & Telus should have IPv6 enabled to end users at this point.
It's true. A good amount of content needs to be available first and that's what World IPv6 Launch will provide with the likes of Google/Youtube, Microsoft/Xbox, Yahoo, Facebook, Netflix and various other large web sites.
Personally I don't feel that the CPE issue is much of an issue anymore. Cisco/D-Link/Netgear/Apple/ZyXEL/ASUS and a few other vendors are now shipping v6 enabled routers out of the box.
relatively modern Linux distros, Windows Vista/7/2008 Server, OS X 10.7+, iOS 5.0+ have good v6 support. OS X 10.5/10.6 have some issues and lack DHCPv6 support. Android is lagging without DHCPv6 support. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to RMerlin
said by RMerlin:For starter, all the hordes of Torrent downloaders would notice if they were NATted by their ISP. Some online gamers hosting a gaming server would also be pretty annoyed. And who knows what would happen with SIP if your ISP's NAT were broken or sub-par...
AT&T will be rolling out CGN soon. Others will be as well. It's the use of CGN and multi-layer NAT and such that'll encourage the use of v6 as it'll become the road that actually works and isn't broken by all the NAT. But ultimately you'd want v6 for Torrents, VoIP, gaming and various other apps anyway. |
|
