 AhnHELAngelPremium
join:2000-09-11
Bayside, NY | reply to bvierra
Re: [Internet] IPv6 just appeared on my connection No IPv6 in NYC :-( |
|
 Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2
 ·Time Warner Cable
3 edits | reply to bvierra
Motorola SBG 6850
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\ ping -6 google.com
Pinging google.com [2001:4860:4007:801::1007] with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Reply from 2001:4860:4007:801::1007: time=29ms
Reply from 2001:4860:4007:801::1007: time=29ms
Reply from 2001:4860:4007:801::1007: time=27ms
Ping statistics for 2001:4860:4007:801::1007:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 3, Lost = 1 (25% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 27ms, Maximum = 29ms, Average = 28ms
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
C:\Users\Brent> ping -6 google.com
Pinging google.com [2001:4860:4007:801::1007] with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Reply from 2001:4860:4007:801::1007: time=29ms
Reply from 2001:4860:4007:801::1007: time=29ms
Reply from 2001:4860:4007:801::1007: time=27ms
Ping statistics for 2001:4860:4007:801::1007:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 3, Lost = 1 (25% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 27ms, Maximum = 29ms, Average = 28ms
C:\Users\>tracert -6 google.com
Tracing route to google.com [2001:4860:4007:801::1007]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 116 ms 28 ms 29 ms 6to4.lax1.he.net [2001:470:0:14e::2]
2 51 ms 32 ms 28 ms gigabitethernet4-12.core1.lax1.he.net [2001:470:
0:14e::1]
3 26 ms 72 ms 27 ms PR01.LAX03.google.com [2001:504:0:3:0:1:5169:1]
4 26 ms 28 ms 29 ms 2001:4860::1:0:29b3
5 26 ms 27 ms 24 ms 2001:4860:0:1::1d7
6 30 ms 28 ms 24 ms lax02s02-in-x07.1e100.net [2001:4860:4007:801::1
007]
Trace complete.
Your IPv4 address on the public Internet appears to be 75.83.XXX.XXX
Your IPv6 address on the public Internet appears to be 2001:0:4137:9e76:XXXX:XXXX:XXXX:XXXX
Your IPv6 service appears to be: Teredo
Your Internet Service Provider (ISP) appears to be ROADRUNNER-WEST - Time Warner Cable Internet LLC
Good news! Your current configuration will continue to work as web sites enable IPv6. [more info]
You appear to be able to browse the IPv4 Internet only. You will not be able to reach IPv6-only sites.
Your IPv6 connection appears to be using Teredo, a type of IPv4/IPv6 gateway; currently it connects only to direct IP's. Your browser will not be able to go to IPv6 sites by name. This means the current configuration is not useful for browsing IPv6 web sites. [more info]
Your DNS server (possibly run by your ISP) appears to have IPv6 Internet access.
XXXXX represent numbers or letters of the ip |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
2 recommendations | reply to bvierra
Anonymous_: Your post is off topic. No one cares about 6to4 or Teredo. |
|
|
|
bodosomLegerdemainPremium
join:2004-03-05 | reply to bvierra
I haven't seen anyone with IPv6 claim more than one address. Is TW routing a prefix to any residential customers?
If not I'm not sure why this is interesting. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
1 recommendation | said by bodosom:I haven't seen anyone with IPv6 claim more than one address. Is TW routing a prefix to any residential customers?
mackey made it pretty clear a /128 is assigned for the WAN side for either a directly connected system or a router and when using a router it can pull down a /64 prefix to be utilized for the LAN side. The interesting question is when will TWC allow for /60's via PD. |
|
bodosomLegerdemainPremium
join:2004-03-05 Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
1 recommendation | said by brad:mackey made it pretty clear a /128 is assigned for the WAN side for either a directly connected system or a router and when using a router it can pull down a /64 prefix to be utilized for the LAN side. I managed to misread that multiple times.
said by brad:The interesting question is when will TWC allow for /60's via PD.
I not sure I understand the import of 60 versus any other (useful) prefix.
What seems interesting/critical is if Time Warne will formally commit to providing a useful prefix without a significant charge to residential customers. Even nicer would be a static prefix. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | said by bodosom:I not sure I understand the import of 60 versus any other (useful) prefix.
What seems interesting/critical is if Time Warne will formally commit to providing a useful prefix without a significant charge to residential customers. Even nicer would be a static prefix.
Well it allows the user to have up to 16 /64's to be utilized for multiple subnets. The most common allocation sizes for a consumer connection via PD are a /60 or a /56. So when I ask about a /60 I just mean providing something more than just a single /64. I would not have an issue with providing /56's either.
Comcast just recently switched from providing only /64's to allowing for /60's again if the DHCPv6-PD client makes such a request. AFAIK they had switched back to /64's for a period of time because there was a bug or bugs for that matter on the CMTS OS side dealing with shorter prefixes being delegated. |
|
| TWC may very well support > /64 allocations, but the router I'm currently using only supports /64's so I cannot check.
/M |
|
bodosomLegerdemainPremium
join:2004-03-05 Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
| reply to brad
said by brad:Well it allows the user to have up to 16 /64's to be utilized for multiple subnets.
I was operating under the assumption that anyone that could accept prefix delegation would be able to manage something other than stateless autoconfig. Of course the immediate prior comment suggests there may legitimate issues with that.
I still struggle with residential use cases for multiple /64 prefixes. No doubt a paucity of imagination on my part.
--
Paul |
|
| reply to AhnHEL
kinda offtopic, but can someone explain to me why my teredo seems to work randomly with ports? right now i could do the 'ping -6 google.com' and not get any response.. so then i have to 'netsh>interface>teredo>set state clientport=xxxxx' with random ports until one works... it might take me 1 new port or even 30 sometimes... and when i type in a port that had already worked on a previous day, it won't work on a new day!
also lets assume twc rolled out ipv6, will i be able to get it through an sb5101 ? |
|
 jimkPremium
join:2006-04-15
Raleigh, NC
·Time Warner Cable
 ·voip.ms
| reply to bradenmcg
said by bradenmcg:Unlike my compatriot in Elyria, I would love to see ipv6 hit the NE Ohio area. OTOH, my current firewall isn't capable (pfsense v2.0.x), but that is coming soon once 2.1 hits final... 
The 2.1 beta of pfSense is very stable and has been for some time. I have been running it for a while with no problems... IPv6 through Hurricane Electric's tunnel broker service. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
1 recommendation | reply to bodosom
said by bodosom:I was operating under the assumption that anyone that could accept prefix delegation would be able to manage something other than stateless autoconfig. Of course the immediate prior comment suggests there may legitimate issues with that.
I still struggle with residential use cases for multiple /64 prefixes. No doubt a paucity of imagination on my part.
That is most likely but most setups will run RA and if anything DHCPv6 optional. Not every OS supports DHCPv6. |
|
bodosomLegerdemainPremium
join:2004-03-05 Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
| reply to brad
said by brad:mackey made it pretty clear a /128 is assigned for the WAN side for either a directly connected system or a router and when using a router it can pull down a /64 prefix to be utilized for the LAN side. So far I've only seen a /64 via dhcp (I'm in the Rochester NY area) but since they don't appear to be routing it may as well be a /128. No /128 via autoconfig. No response to a request for prefix delegation.
So upon re-reviewing the posts I see no evidence of anything other than a /128 equivalent.
By the way, the lack of autoconfig is what guided my poor thinking. I made an assumption rather than actually look at the ipv6 traffic on the interface. |
|
| reply to AhnHEL
said by AhnHEL:No IPv6 in NYC :-(
:) |
|
 NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind awayPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 | Where did you get that image? |
|
| Looks like a screencap of »ipv6-test.com/
/M |
|
| reply to bodosom
Did you try rebooting both your router and cable modem? IPv6 wasn't working right for me until I did.
/M |
|
bodosomLegerdemainPremium
join:2004-03-05 Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
| said by mackey:[att=1]
Did you try rebooting both your router and cable modem? IPv6 wasn't working right for me until I did.
It's extremely unlikely that IPv6 is "new" here. I suspect it's either been about for some time or it's not really deployed yet. If autoconfiguration was being used I would have gotten an address immediately. Doing a DHCP request immediately returned an address and default route but the prefix delegation doesn't appear to be working so either I have a misconfiguration or it's not actually provisioned. |
|
| reply to NormanS
said by NormanS:Where did you get that image?
»ipv6-test.com/simple.php |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
1 recommendation | reply to NR0041
said by NR0041 :said by AhnHEL:No IPv6 in NYC :-(
:) But that appears to be using Teredo. The point of the thread was about native dual-stack service not transition mechanisms which have been around for a long time. |
|
bodosomLegerdemainPremium
join:2004-03-05 Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
| reply to bodosom
said by bodosom: either I have a misconfiguration or it's not actually provisioned.
It seems the former. I seem to be unable to get ISC-DHCP to get a prefix. I don't feel too inept though because isc prefix delegation appears to flummox other people as well. Using WIDE-DHCP solved my problem.
Sadly the prefixes appear fairly dynamic in my neighborhood and the latency to some important sites is notably higher than ipv4 or my he.net tunnel. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | Interesting that your're having an issue with ISC's vs WIDE's DHCPv6 implementation for PD. Well at least you know the infrastructure is provisioned with PD support.
Where are you located? |
|
bodosomLegerdemainPremium
join:2004-03-05
1 edit | I'm in the Rochester NY service area. A friend in the Buffalo NY service area says he's not seeing any IPv6 traffic yet. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | Sorry you did say that above. I should have seen that. |
|
Mele20Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:4 | reply to NR0041
How do you get that site to work? I get this there:
"Your browser does not seem to support cross-domain XMLHttpRequest 
Without it IPv6-test.com can only show you the address for the default protocol your browser is using.
In order to run the full connection test, please upgrade to the lastest version of Firefox, Chrome, Safari, or Internet Explorer".
I tried on Fx 17.0.8 ESR, IE 10 64 bit and Opera 12.16.
I saw posts in their forum from users with the same problem who are using Chrome. There were no support replies.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson |
|
NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind awayPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 | Try it without the '/simple.php'. |
|
Mele20Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:4 | How would I do that? |
|
bodosomLegerdemainPremium
join:2004-03-05 Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
| said by Mele20:How would I do that?
Change »ipv6-test.com/simple.php to »ipv6-test.com/
However:
1) That doesn't really fix the problem but if you're blocking Javascript you can fiddle but since ....
2) The site is wrong so nevermind. Use »test-ipv6.com/ if you want correct information rather than a particular graphic. |
|
Mele20Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:4 | Heck...I didn't notice that in the url. Thanks.
I've done the other test, but not in a long time. I still score 0 out of 10.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson |
|
| said by Mele20:...I've done the other test...
Speed Test: Server @ Netherlans - ZeelandNet (~ 7900 km)
»ipv6-test.com/speedtest/ |
|
