1 recommendation |
to dod1450
Re: Att U-verse IPv6I know AT&T is working on IPv6, however, when they will actually have it up and running is anyones guess. |
|
trparky Premium Member join:2000-05-24 Cleveland, OH ·AT&T U-Verse
|
trparky
Premium Member
2013-Aug-22 11:03 am
I hate to say this but not many ISPs have IPv6 operating on their networks.
There's really no need for IPv6 yet since there's still a lot of IPv4 IP addresses left in the IP address pools that many of the US ISPs have. Heck, even some of the big name data centers in the US still have vast amounts of IPv4 IP addresses still in their allocated pools. |
|
dod1450 join:2013-01-05 Redwood City, CA |
to Paralel
I have noticed that their DSL modems have IPv6 native turn on. I was able to add google ipv6 dns addresses from another user who had asked for my assistance. |
|
trparky Premium Member join:2000-05-24 Cleveland, OH
1 recommendation |
trparky
Premium Member
2013-Aug-22 11:15 am
Yes, but AT&T's routers may not be instructed to handle the IPv6 packets yet. There's not a big rush to get IPv6 going in the US yet. |
|
NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
1 recommendation |
to trparky
said by trparky:There's really no need for IPv6 yet ... Unless you want to go to a web site in a region of the world where they have already exhausted their allotment of IPv4 IP addresses. |
|
|
trparky Premium Member join:2000-05-24 Cleveland, OH ·AT&T U-Verse
|
trparky
Premium Member
2013-Aug-22 12:34 pm
said by NormanS:Unless you want to go to a web site in a region of the world where they have already exhausted their allotment of IPv4 IP addresses. Most big name web sites, even in overseas countries, still have IPv4 addresses. Again, less than 5% of the Internet is running IPv6. To require the use of IPv6 is cutting off a very large majority of the Internet market and from a marketing standpoint, that's plain stupid. |
|
NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
|
to trparky
said by trparky:Yes, but AT&T's routers may not be instructed to handle the IPv6 packets yet. There's not a big rush to get IPv6 going in the US yet. I would be very surprised if AT&T routers couldn't route IPv6 packets. |
|
|
mackey Premium Member join:2007-08-20 |
mackey
Premium Member
2013-Aug-22 1:59 pm
I wouldn't as PMTU discovery was completely borked on them last year; I haven't checked it recently.
/M |
|
NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
|
to trparky
said by trparky:Most big name web sites, even in overseas countries, still have IPv4 addresses. If all you ever do is visit "big name web sites", you will likely never need IPv6 in your lifetime, or your children's. But a backroad explorer will, sooner, or later, encounter a "hole in the wall" site, and the Vermont farmer's directions will come true: "You can't get there from here". |
|
NormanS |
to mackey
Which routers are we discussing? Tracing route to www.att.net [2001:1890:1c01:2::40]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 3 ms 8 ms 8 ms Chihiro [2001:470:1f05:448::1]
2 47 ms 48 ms 48 ms NKonaya-1.tunnel.tserv3.fmt2.ipv6.he.net [2001:470:1f04:448::1]
3 41 ms 43 ms 44 ms gige-g5-19.core1.fmt2.he.net [2001:470:0:45::1]
4 42 ms 53 ms 44 ms 10gigabitethernet1-1.core1.sjc2.he.net [2001:470:0:31::2]
5 42 ms 48 ms 48 ms 10gigabitethernet14-7.core1.lax2.he.net [2001:470:0:16a::2]
6 45 ms 43 ms 44 ms att-internet4-as7018.10gigabitethernet5-2.core1.lax2.he.net [2001:470:0:1e6::2]
7 92 ms 104 ms 100 ms la2ca22crs.ipv6.att.net [2001:1890:ff:ffff:12:123:30:190]
8 108 ms 99 ms 99 ms dlstx22crs.ipv6.att.net [2001:1890:ff:ffff:12:122:28:177]
9 96 ms 109 ms 108 ms attga21crs.ipv6.att.net [2001:1890:ff:ffff:12:122:28:173]
10 96 ms 98 ms 98 ms attga409me3.ipv6.att.net [2001:1890:ff:ffff:12:122:120:244]
11 96 ms 98 ms 98 ms 2001:1890:c00:8802::11cc:6c6d
12 96 ms 99 ms 98 ms 2001:1890:1c01:2::40
Trace complete.
|
|
mackey Premium Member join:2007-08-20 |
mackey
Premium Member
2013-Aug-23 7:40 pm
said by NormanS:Which routers are we discussing? AT&T's core: tracepath6 ipv6.google.com
1?: [LOCALHOST] pmtu 1500
1: 2602:3xy:zxyz:xyz0::1 0.119ms pmtu 1480
1: 2602:300:c533:1510::8 asymm 3 21.923ms
2: la2ca403me3.ipv6.att.net asymm 4 23.707ms
3: no reply
4: no reply
5: no reply
6: no reply
7: no reply
8: no reply
9: no reply
10: no reply
11: no reply
12: no reply
13: no reply
14: no reply
15: no reply
16: no reply
17: no reply
18: no reply
19: no reply
20: no reply
21: no reply
22: no reply
23: no reply
24: no reply
25: no reply
26: no reply
27: no reply
28: no reply
29: no reply
30: no reply
31: no reply
Too many hops: pmtu 1480
Resume: pmtu 1480
/M |
|
NormanSI gave her time to steal my mind away MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA TP-Link TD-8616 Asus RT-AC66U B1 Netgear FR114P
|
said by mackey:said by NormanS:Which routers are we discussing? AT&T's core ... Interesting; but they seem to work from the outside in: Tracing route to 2602:300:c533:1510::8 over a maximum of 30 hops
1 1 ms 5 ms 2 ms Chihiro [2001:470:1f05:448::1]
2 41 ms 44 ms 41 ms NKonaya-1.tunnel.tserv3.fmt2.ipv6.he.net [2001:470:1f04:448::1]
3 49 ms 49 ms 45 ms gige-g5-19.core1.fmt2.he.net [2001:470:0:45::1]
4 43 ms 44 ms 36 ms 10gigabitethernet1-1.core1.sjc2.he.net [2001:470:0:31::2]
5 44 ms 47 ms 44 ms 10gigabitethernet14-7.core1.lax2.he.net [2001:470:0:16a::2]
6 44 ms 41 ms 48 ms att-internet4-as7018.10gigabitethernet5-2.core1.lax2.he.net [2001:470:0:1e6::2]
7 58 ms 58 ms 68 ms la2ca21crs.ipv6.att.net [2001:1890:ff:ffff:12:123:30:18]
8 57 ms 58 ms 58 ms 2001:1890:ff:ffff:12:122:85:37
9 52 ms 50 ms 60 ms 2001:1890:ff:ffff:12:123:132:134
10 * 56 ms * 2602:300:c533:1510::8
11 48 ms * 52 ms 2602:300:c533:1510::8
Trace complete.
|
|