 PeeWeePremium
join:2001-10-21
Madera, CA
1 edit | [IPv6] Finally IPV6 Now what? My SB6121 is receiving IPV6 address. How do I enable this on my Netgear 3500L running Toastman Tomato 1.28.7500?
--
Iphone. Helping computer illiteracy become popular since 2007 |
|
|
|
 NetFixerFrom my cold dead handsPremium
join:2004-06-24
The Boro
 ·Comcast Business..
 ·Vonage
 ·Cingular Wireless
·Comcast
| Re: Finally IPV6 Now what? said by PeeWee:My SB6121 is receiving IPV6 address. How do I enable this on my Netgear 3500L running Toastman Tomato 1.28.7500?
If you are talking about your SB6121 getting a maintenance interface IPv6 connection, that doesn't necessarily mean that your CMTS is ready to provide you with native CPE IPv6 service.
I would suggest that you temporarily connect an IPv6 ready PC directly to the SB6121 (and then reboot both devices) to see if the PC can get IPv6 connectivity before worrying about the router. This way you will know in advance if Comcast actually supports native IPv6 for CPE devices on your connection, and won't waste time banging your head against the wall trying to get your router to do something that is impossible.
If the PC is able to get IPv6 connectivity, then I can't offer any specific advice for the firmware you are using in your router. But in general, setup the router to use DHCPv6 on its WAN interface, and enable DHCP-PD for its LAN interface.
--
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. |
|
 NetDogPremium,VIP
join:2002-03-04
Parker, CO
kudos:4
·Comcast
| said by NetFixer:I would suggest that you temporarily connect an IPv6 ready PC directly to the SB6121 (and then reboot both devices) to see if the PC can get IPv6 connectivity before worrying about the router. This way you will know in advance if Comcast actually supports native IPv6 for CPE devices on your connection, and won't waste time banging your head against the wall trying to get your router to do something that is impossible.
If the PC is able to get IPv6 connectivity, then I can't offer any specific advice for the firmware you are using in your router. But in general, setup the router to use DHCPv6 on its WAN interface, and enable DHCP-PD for its LAN interface.
I totally agree with NetFixer  test this first.. The PC needs to be a DHCPv6 enabled OS, so the latest MAC OS or Windows 7, Linux also has support for DHCPv6 |
|
| Whats the advantage of running ipv6 on your internal network ? |
|
 whfsdudePremium
join:2003-04-05
Washington, DC
·T-Mobile US
| said by Tlamming:Whats the advantage of running ipv6 on your internal network ?
So you can reach the IPv6 internet. Unless you're running a proxy, you need v6 internally and not just at the border. |
|
| reply to Tlamming
For most people it doesn't matter, there is no advantage.
For people that want it however it's pretty good to have.
To setup Tomato just go to the Basic section and enable IPV6 then choose DHCPv6 PD from the list and it should automatically pick it up. If it doesn't then you can unplug and all that to test as making a change in the router is much faster  |
|
NetDogPremium,VIP
join:2002-03-04
Parker, CO
kudos:4 Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by SHoTTa35 :For most people it doesn't matter, there is no advantage.
I disagree, as more and more content is available for IPv6 the more people will need dual-stack. google, youtube, facebook are all sites that are accessed via IPv6 as well as v4. |
|
| reply to Tlamming
IPv6 doesn't require NAT. Some people see this as a plus, some people see this as a minus. I see it as a plus. |
|
 EGThe wings of lovePremium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ
kudos:9 | said by Clever_Proxy:IPv6 doesn't require NAT. Some people see this as a plus, some people see this as a minus. I see it as a plus.
Yep ! Agree with that ! NAT has always been a kludge of an implementation IMO ! |
|
 graysonfPremium,MVM
join:1999-07-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL | reply to Clever_Proxy
said by Clever_Proxy:IPv6 doesn't require NAT. Some people see this as a plus, some people see this as a minus. I see it as a plus.
I see it as the entire point. |
|
| reply to NetDog
said by NetDog:said by SHoTTa35 :For most people it doesn't matter, there is no advantage.
I disagree, as more and more content is available for IPv6 the more people will need dual-stack. google, youtube, facebook are all sites that are accessed via IPv6 as well as v4. I meant doesn't matter as long as they have a connection. They wont know they are connected to YouTube via IPv6 and it doesn't matter which way they are as long as it works.
Now for times when it matters like trying to connect to remote cameras to check in at the house/business property. Had to set that up this week and granted it wasn't that hard but for the average folk, yeah that definitely would be a pain in the butt with NAT and firewalls in place.
I am on another ISP and keep doing random google searches to see when I'll finally see some news about IPv6! Saldy, still nothing yet. Probably the only thing I wish I was with Comcast for, .... not much else yet  |
|
| reply to graysonf
Yea but NAT is how most consume grade devices handle the firewall part... NAT was more secure. |
|
graysonfPremium,MVM
join:1999-07-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL | Any decent IPv6 capable router should have a statefull firewall, enabled by default, but also one that can allow the user to allow selected unsolicited traffic in. The one I use runs that way. |
|
EGThe wings of lovePremium
join:2006-11-18
Union, NJ
kudos:9 | reply to AnonMan
said by AnonMan :Yea but NAT is how most consume grade devices handle the firewall part... NAT was more secure.
Not necessarily.. I call it false security. The SPI firewall in routers handles the "firewall part". |
|
NetDogPremium,VIP
join:2002-03-04
Parker, CO
kudos:4 Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by EG:said by AnonMan :Yea but NAT is how most consume grade devices handle the firewall part... NAT was more secure.
Not necessarily.. I call it false security. The SPI firewall in routers handles the "firewall part". Yes Totally 110%.. NAT was not a security function is was never designed as one, and it wasn't one. A statefull inspection or ACL is a firewall but not port forwarding\port redirection\dynamic port allocation or whatever you would like to call NAT..
"Fanboy" series - IPv6 and NATs
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=v26BAlfWBm8 |
|
NetFixerFrom my cold dead handsPremium
join:2004-06-24
The Boro Reviews:
·Comcast Business..
·Vonage
·Cingular Wireless
·Comcast
| reply to EG
said by EG:said by AnonMan :Yea but NAT is how most consume grade devices handle the firewall part... NAT was more secure.
Not necessarily.. I call it false security. The SPI firewall in routers handles the "firewall part". True, but not all IPv6 capable routers have fully implemented SPI firewalls.
My D-Link DIR655 does have such a firewall:
However, my Netgear WNR1000v2 only has a simple On/Off switch for its IPv6 firewall, and if it is not enabled, every IPv6 device behind the router is open to the Internet (fortunately the "Secured" mode is the default in this router). Not every user is accustomed to having to setup IPv6 firewall rules in each PC, and that will be a big security risk for the near future (until router vendors start to take IPv6 seriously):
--
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. |
|
| reply to NetDog
said by NetDog:"Fanboy" series - IPv6 and NATs
Lol! That was painful to watch. I feel like I've had this argument before... |
|
