| Status of ipv6 with Canadian ISP
I was hoping we could get people to post any info they have on their isp's and ipv6 implementation.
Anyone know of an isp in Western Canada that provides /56 ipv6? Currently my isp , tsi, will only give us 1 ipv6 ip from a /64 block. |
|
| ipv6 isn't a requirement yet so who/who doesn't have it does not matter. |
|
| reply to spock
Re: Status of ipv6 with Canadian ISP Why you would actively want an IPv6 address is beyond me. |
|
 elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand
 ·Cybersurf Intern..
| reply to spock
We wouldn't be having this discussion if the ARIN would grow a pair and start taking back the Class A addresses that companies like Apple and HP have.
HP has 2 complete (going through the first 20 addresses only) Class A addresses!!!
Level 3 also does.
The US DOD has 3
MIT has an entire class A address.
It's a bloody joke.
Come on rescind them... allocate a portion, I bet not 1/10 of that space is actively used.
--
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake....... |
|
| said by elwoodblues:We wouldn't be having this discussion if the ARIN would grow a pair and start taking back the Class A addresses that companies like Apple and HP have.
HP has 2 complete (going through the first 20 addresses only) Class A addresses!!!
One of HP's used to belong to DEC. |
|
| reply to Last Parade
said by Last Parade:Why you would actively want an IPv6 address is beyond me.
On the contrary, why would you want to actively restrict yourself from accessing the entire Internet? I just don't understand IPv6 luddism. It's like saying "my car still has gas in the tank, so I don't care if nobody is selling the Mr. Fusion here."
IPv6 moves us from a world where numbers are a scarce, expensive commodity, to a world of boundless plenty. How could you possibly be opposed to that, unless you have a vested interest in profiting from the scarcity? |
|
| reply to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues:We wouldn't be having this discussion if the ARIN would grow a pair and start taking back the Class A addresses that companies like Apple and HP have. We would still be having this discussion; it would just be a few months later. You listed eight class A networks, but prior to the global IPv4 pool depletion in January 2011, we were burning through twenty class As per year!
See the graphs here:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_addre···haustion
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."
- Albert A. Bartlett, physicist |
|
|
|
cog_biz_useri ruin threads apparently
join:2011-04-19
Hamilton, ON | reply to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues:We wouldn't be having this discussion if the ARIN would grow a pair and start taking back the Class A addresses that companies like Apple and HP have. A's aren't the only problem. We're wasting a B at work... What does a nursing station need with a public IP address? Plenty of hospitals around here are guilty of the same offence.
--
Myth: It's only fair to pay for quality first-run movies.
Fact: Most movies shown on cable get two stars or less
and are repeated ad nauseum. |
|
 GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20 | reply to spock
IPv6 remains completely useless and unnecessary at this point. Despite paul248 claiming that lack of IPv6 support somehow "restricts [you] from accessing the entire internet", that's garbage. Show me one instance of a service that can't be accessed by IPv4 that isn't a case of somebody with an agenda purposefully limiting a feature or service to IPv6 to help convince the public of its utility? And I define that as "if the organization has IPv4 addresses, their IPv6-only services are part of their IPv6 agenda and not legitimately restricted".
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org |
|
| said by Guspaz:IPv6 remains completely useless and unnecessary at this point. No longer having to mess with port forwarding and related work-arounds because every LAN device can have its own public IP address is useless to you? Imagine having multiple native IP-phones connecting to your VoIP provider... annoying to setup with IPv4 because you have to make sure each phone has a unique inbound port but with IPv6, it would simply work. Just need VoIP providers and devices to support IPv6 instead of a plethora of port forwarding management tricks.
While IPv6 may not yet be a MUST-have feature, it certainly is a NICE-to-have feature. |
|
| reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:Show me one instance of a service that can't be accessed by IPv4 that isn't a case of somebody with an agenda purposefully limiting a feature or service to IPv6 to help convince the public of its utility? There are plenty of dual-stack services (e.g. Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Bing, Wikipedia) which will utilize IPv6 if you have it. When ISPs are forced to deploy large-scale NAT, then this will give you a way to route around state boxes that would otherwise be beyond your control.
Also, large-scale NAT will make it very difficult to connect to your machines from elsewhere, unless you also have IPv6. It's not mainly about getting new features, it's about preserving what we have for the future.
If you have IPv6 service in two places, then it's usable now, regardless of what the rest of the world is doing: you can give each of your machines a unique hostname, and SSH to them without mucking around with port forwarding. It's really quite nice. |
|
| >When ISPs are forced to deploy large-scale NAT, then this will give you a way to route around state boxes that would otherwise be beyond your control.
The ISPs that go to the trouble of using CGNAT are unlikely to offer IPv6. "Side effects" of torrents and VoIP not working with CGNAT certainly would benefit our last mile gate keepers.
People would have to figure out IPv6 tunnel services on their own. |
|
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to Last Parade
said by Last Parade:Why you would actively want an IPv6 address is beyond me.
ipv6 is coming. There is no doubt about that. ipv4 only provides 4.2 billion addresses, not enough for every single person on the planet. There are benefits of ipv6 over ipv4. I want ipv6 for training purposes. Unfortunately my ISP will only give me a single ip from the same /64 it gives everyone else. This means only one device in my network will have ipv6 connectivity. I want to see what my options were. I did not want to have a debate of ipv6 over ipv4. It is a waste of time. I'd suggest people embrace ipv6 and start learning how it works. The day of PAT will be over. I personally like to learn and figure out how things work. An advancement like ipv6 sounds like an interesting challenge.
One benefit I see will be for gamers. IPv6 will see faster ping times. Everytime a ipv4 packet passes through a router that router has to recalculate the frame check sequence. This eats up processor time and adds to the delay. IPv6 does not have fcs and relays on layer 2 and layer 4 error checking. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to random
said by random :The ISPs that go to the trouble of using CGNAT are unlikely to offer IPv6. "Side effects" of torrents and VoIP not working with CGNAT certainly would benefit our last mile gate keepers.
Incorrect. The assumption is that CGN and IPv6 are mutually exclusive and they're not. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to paul248
said by paul248:We would still be having this discussion; it would just be a few months later. You listed eight class A networks, but prior to the global IPv4 pool depletion in January 2011, we were burning through twenty class As per year!
See the graphs here:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_addre···haustion
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."
- Albert A. Bartlett, physicist
Worrying about clawing back v4 space is so ridiculously short sighted. Even under the best circumstances that might buy no more than a year.. gimme a break.
Nope. Internet is closed. You're going to have to close up shop. |
|
2 edits | reply to spock
said by spock:Unfortunately my ISP will only give me a single ip from the same /64 it gives everyone else. It sounds like they haven't put much effort into deploying IPv6 robustly (Edit: that's probably false; see below). Are you sure that you're actually limited to a single IP, or can you grab any number of addresses as long as you participate in Neighbor Discovery?
If it's the latter, then you might be able to hack something together using 6relayd:
»github.com/sbyx/6relayd
Edit: also, If you haven't already, try asking your ISP if they'd be willing to manually route a /56 to you. This thread suggests that they were beta testing with /56 routes in 2010:
»IPv6 beta |
|
| reply to brad
>The assumption is that CGN and IPv6 are mutually exclusive and they're not.
They are not mutually exclusive from a technical point of view, but are on a for-profit/expenses point of view. In an ideal (dream) world, multiple solutions would be offered.
Why would large telecom corporations that control 90+% of the market who are keep on maximizing their profit and skim on expanding their networks spend extra money to serve the 5% for the more technical users? It is diminishing returns for their quarterly earnings.
That's something the smaller guys might offer. They aren't likely to use CGNAT in the first place. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to paul248
said by paul248:It sounds like they haven't put much effort into deploying IPv6 robustly (Edit: that's probably false; see below). Are you sure that you're actually limited to a single IP, or can you grab any number of addresses as long as you participate in Neighbor Discovery?
TSI's v6 roll out even for beta testing has been pretty poor. |
|
