| reply to paul248
Re: Status of ipv6 with Canadian ISP said by paul248: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? What part of the internet can you not access? |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to random
said by random :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.
Well ya, that's why you'll see v6 rolled out for most providers before CGN. But CGN will come eventually too even for the largest of carriers.
said by random :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.
Even the largest of carriers with a lot of v4 resources are looking at CGN. Why "waste" v4 address space on consumer connections when it isn't necessary? (I don't agree with this but a lot of clueless seem to think so too). Take away the v4 address space for the residential connections and use it for business customers or even pay for a v4 address. Would you really be surprised by that? |
|
Bill C
join:2013-02-17
Vancouver, BC | reply to spock
TSI may be similar to Skyway West, we assign a /48 to each customer with multiple sites and a /64 to each network segment/site. From our perspective, a /64 is the new /24 (also know as a class C). |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | said by Bill C:TSI may be similar to Skyway West, we assign a /48 to each customer with multiple sites and a /64 to each network segment/site. From our perspective, a /64 is the new /24 (also know as a class C).
You should allow a customer to request a /60. Trying to compare v4 to v6 doesn't make any sense, especially for consumer connections. Only providing a /64 for a business customer is ridiculously stingy and will just piss off those customers. |
|
|
|
 elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand
 ·Cybersurf Intern..
| reply to brad
said by brad: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. I think we'd get more then a year out of it. Does every single device need a public IP? I know even if I had a whole mess of ip6's available to me, I wouldn't expose my devices.
While i can see the advantage to that, these days, no way in hell.
--
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....... |
|
| reply to brad
>Why "waste" v4 address space on consumer connections when it isn't necessary?
Especially in the ever changing contracts for the large telecom corporations, the residential customers are forbidden to have "servers". They hate torrents and VoIp cutting into their content and phone business. No servers means no need to have an routable external IP. This is one way of them (en)forcing that.
Chances are that IPv6 would be offered to their business customers while the residential would be in a walled garden with CGN. They might bump the small residential users to their higher tiers service just for the luxury of being able to be reach from the outside world. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues:I think we'd get more then a year out of it.
Too bad you're wrong.
said by elwoodblues:Does every single device need a public IP? I know even if I had a whole mess of ip6's available to me, I wouldn't expose my devices.
While i can see the advantage to that, these days, no way in hell.
No one said you have to "expose" your devices but you're given the option of doing so as you please. Lots of people want that option of being able to do so.
Only people that know what they're doing should do so.
CPE will not do so by default unless the user has changed the settings. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to random
said by random :Chances are that IPv6 would be offered to their business customers while the residential would be in a walled garden with CGN. They might bump the small residential users to their higher tiers service just for the luxury of being able to be reach from the outside world.
That will be the exception not the norm. But that's a good way of pissing off a lot of your customers and having them move elsewhere. |
|
| reply to paul248
I live in the west so the ipv6 beta for teksavvy is quite a bit different than in Ontario. No /56
I will look into 6rd
Thanks |
|
| said by spock:I will look into 6rd I mentioned 6relayd. 6rd is "IPv6 rapid deployment", a tunneling technology which is almost but not entirely unrelated to this discussion. |
|
| reply to spock
said by spock: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. If your ISP is really doing it this way then they are breaking the IPv6 standard which calls for a WHOLE /64 for each subscriber. The cheapest ARIN allocation for IPv6 is $2500/year for any size from /40 to /32 so it makes no sense for ISPs to order anything smaller than /32, which is enough to give a /64 to as many as 4 billion endpoints.
Your router is supposed to pick up its /64 subnet either through DHCP or route advertisement and then either assign addresses to LAN devices using DHCP or advertise the IPv6 route on the LAN and let devices self-configure the remaining 64 bits of the address field using SLAAC. Either way, the ISP should not be managing the 64 LSBs. |
|
 aefstoggaflmOpen Source FanPremium
join:2002-03-04
Bethlehem, PA
kudos:2
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz: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".
#1 I heard/read from »www22.verizon.com/Support/Reside···8742.htm
that
quote:
Today (2012) the industry has very few sites that are IPv6-only and would require you to change your equipment (less than 1%).
#2 I looked around to verify / backup that claim and the only thing that I found so far was
»networking.vutbr.cz/live-statistics/
--
Please use the "yellow (IM) envelope" to contact me and please leave the URL intact. |
|
 SteveI know your IP addressConsultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5 | 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. ARIN doesn't have the legal authority to do this.
Owners of the legacy allocations have not signed any kind of registration services agreement with ARIN, so there's no contract that ARIN can enforce, and they can't just take the property of others.
Steve — who's been trying to get IPv6 for a while as well
--
Stephen J. Friedl | Unix Wizard | Security Consultant | Orange County, California USA | my web site |
|
elwoodbluesElwood BluesPremium
join:2006-08-30
HarperLand Reviews:
·Cybersurf Intern..
| reply to brad
said by brad:No one said you have to "expose" your devices but you're given the option of doing so as you please. Lots of people want that option of being able to do so.
Only people that know what they're doing should do so.
What have you been smoking? Are you going to sit there and seriously tell me that you'd expose a IPv6 corporate network to the internet, "because you know what you're doing"?
I know what I'm doing and and in no way in hell would I expose a home network, let alone a corporate one to the Internet.
I have /28 address space at work and for us, it's perfect.
--
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....... |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | said by elwoodblues:What have you been smoking? Are you going to sit there and seriously tell me that you'd expose a IPv6 corporate network to the internet, "because you know what you're doing"?
I know what I'm doing and and in no way in hell would I expose a home network, let alone a corporate one to the Internet.
I have /28 address space at work and for us, it's perfect.
I could say the same to you. If I need to access services provided by systems within the inside network, then yes. How am I supposed to do that without exposing them to the net? You're telling me you have never setup port forwarding for anything on your network with IPv4? |
|
Gami00
join:2010-03-11
Mississauga, ON | reply to elwoodblues
Aren't there private blocks of IP6 as well? just like IP4?
i don't get this exposing all devices to the internet deal when it works so much similar to IP4, that all these fears and nonsense seem to be worthless. |
|
Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to elwoodblues
Just because you have a publicly routable IP address, doesn't mean that you have to disable your residential gateway's firewall. You can still get NAT levels of protection with public IPs.
You can still deny incoming connections by default, you can still set up exceptions lists, and do all those wonderful things. You just now have a unique IP in the entire world, instead of only unique within your household. No biggy. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to rogersmogers
said by rogersmogers :ipv6 isn't a requirement yet so who/who doesn't have it does not matter.
Nice ignorance. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to Gami00
said by Gami00:all these fears and nonsense seem to be worthless.
The fears and nonsense comes from a lack of understanding of how firewalls and NAT works. |
|
SteveI know your IP addressConsultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5 | reply to elwoodblues
That's where you lost me.
It's perfectly possible to run an inside network with publicly-routable IP addresses and protect it with the same firewall you use for your residential network.
Many, possibly including you, confuse "NAT" with "firewall", and those who believe you can only protect with NAT are saying very clear that they do not know what they're doing.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl | Unix Wizard | Security Consultant | Orange County, California USA | my web site |
|
