dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
61
share rss forum feed

Bink
Villains... knock off all that evil

join:2006-05-14
Castle Rock, CO
kudos:4

2 recommendations

A Leader Here

Comcast gets A LOT wrong, but they got this one right.


raydsltech

join:2004-07-04
Concord, NC

Whats it mean to the end user? What about stuff like NAT and customer equipment?


Bink
Villains... knock off all that evil

join:2006-05-14
Castle Rock, CO
kudos:4

Means once your local environment supports IPv6—router, operating system and whatnot—you won’t need NAT and you’ll be able to start using IPv6 to connect to sites that natively support it.



Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:39

2 recommendations

reply to Bink

They've honestly been pretty great ever since the BitTorrent fiasco about transparency regarding network security and infrastructure moves.


raydsltech

join:2004-07-04
Concord, NC
reply to Bink

Im just getting into learning about IP6. What I cant understand is how to keep the LAN safe without NAT.


Bink
Villains... knock off all that evil

join:2006-05-14
Castle Rock, CO
kudos:4

2 recommendations

NAT doesn’t keep you safe—it just translates packets. What does tend to keep you safe is the firewall and Stateful Packet Inspection and this tends to be employed by most devices doing NAT, but it can/is used without NAT as well.



tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1
reply to raydsltech

The Lan isn't particularly safe with NAT. Firewalling does become more important.



JimThePCGuy
Formerly known as schja01.
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-27
Morton Grove, IL
reply to Karl Bode

And how much will this knock off my Xfinity Internet bill each month?


raydsltech

join:2004-07-04
Concord, NC
reply to Bink

If your host ip is on the internet IP6 or 4 how can one prevent attacks?


Bink
Villains... knock off all that evil

join:2006-05-14
Castle Rock, CO
kudos:4

3 recommendations

Same way you do now—a firewall—but this is getting a bit off topic and probably best hashed out in the appropriate forum.


Bengie25

join:2010-04-22
Wisconsin Rapids, WI
Reviews:
·Solarus
reply to Bink

said by Bink:

Comcast gets A LOT wrong, but they got this one right.

Hear, Hear. Give credit where credit is due.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to JimThePCGuy

said by JimThePCGuy:

And how much will this knock off my Xfinity Internet bill each month?

Not making any sense..


JimThePCGuy
Formerly known as schja01.
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-27
Morton Grove, IL

1 recommendation

Comcast can run so much more efficiently so I would think they would pass the savings on to it's customers. No?


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

said by JimThePCGuy:

Comcast can run so much more efficiently so I would think they would pass the savings on to it's customers. No?

Very bizarre logic. If they were going to reduce your bill at all they would have done so already. This isn't going to make a difference.


JimThePCGuy
Formerly known as schja01.
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-27
Morton Grove, IL

1 recommendation

Maybe you missed my original sarcasm?



PaulHikeS2

join:2003-03-06
Fitchburg, MA
reply to JimThePCGuy

Still not making any sense. What's the point here?
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet???


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
reply to JimThePCGuy

said by JimThePCGuy:

Maybe you missed my original sarcasm?

I thought you were being serious. It's hard to tell in text form. There are a lot of people around here that would post such things and be very serious about it.


JimThePCGuy
Formerly known as schja01.
Premium,MVM
join:2000-04-27
Morton Grove, IL

1 recommendation

OK
One more time ...
[sarcasm]
With the network efficiency afforded to Comcast by going IPV6, when should I expect a decrease in my cable modem bill as I am sure Comcast wouldn't pass up the opportunity to pass on the $$ savings.
[/sarcasm]


J


Bink
Villains... knock off all that evil

join:2006-05-14
Castle Rock, CO
kudos:4
Reviews:
·VOIPO

said by JimThePCGuy:

With the network efficiency afforded to Comcast by going IPV6, when should I expect a decrease in my cable modem bill as I am sure Comcast wouldn't pass up the opportunity to pass on the $$ savings.

Riiight after they recoup the massive cost of being an early adopter of IPv6…

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

2 recommendations

said by Bink:

Riiight after they recoup the massive cost of being an early adopter of IPv6…

Being years behind the curve is not an early adopter. It is more like dragging their feet less than most of the rest of the industry. It is also debatable how much they really spent. They did not replace their CMTS gear and if they did replace any other network gear it was part of their refresh cycles to do network upgrades; as in it was not specifically for v6 but it could benefit the roll out. What other spending they did like CMS integration of certain aspects of v6 provisioning and such is just part of doing business.


IPV6 issues

@comcast.net
reply to Bink

said by Bink:

Comcast gets A LOT wrong, but they got this one right.

I have successfully implemented IPV6 for all devices on my LAN and connected to WAN using Comcast's IPV6 setup. But after trying out for about a month or so, I disabled IPV6 in my router and use just IPV4.

And the reason is that I frequently saw slower response to many web sites when connected using IPV6. I never tried to determine why this was happening(routing?, Poor web site implementation of IPV6, or whatever). Just that response times using IPV4 were just better.

Maybe after IPV6 becomes more prevalent at more and more web sites and some routing issues are improved, I may turn IPV6 back on again.

Bink
Villains... knock off all that evil

join:2006-05-14
Castle Rock, CO
kudos:4
Reviews:
·VOIPO

1 recommendation

reply to 34764170

said by 34764170:

Being years behind the curve is not an early adopter. It is more like dragging their feet less than most of the rest of the industry. It is also debatable how much they really spent. They did not replace their CMTS gear and if they did replace any other network gear it was part of their refresh cycles to do network upgrades; as in it was not specifically for v6 but it could benefit the roll out. What other spending they did like CMS integration of certain aspects of v6 provisioning and such is just part of doing business.

We could say everyone is behind the curve as IPv6 makes up, perhaps, 1% of Internet traffic? The fact is, at least in the US, no other consumer-focused ISP has gone as far as Comcast has with regard to IPv6 and there is a massive learning curve in doing so—not to mention all the issues uncovered as they went down this route—and the time people spent on this stuff cost money as well. Most of the other consumer-focused ISPs are simply waiting for companies like Comcast to do all the time consuming leg work and then take advantage of the lessons learned.


vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

3 recommendations

reply to raydsltech

Just because an external node sends a packet to a device on your network doesn't mean your firewall has to allow that packet to reach the device. All packets entering your network still go through the firewall; if there's no rule allowing the packet through (and no recent packet went out from that port), it gets dropped. NAT's not essential to the process.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to Bink

said by Bink:

We could say everyone is behind the curve as IPv6 makes up, perhaps, 1% of Internet traffic? The fact is, at least in the US, no other consumer-focused ISP has gone as far as Comcast has with regard to IPv6 and there is a massive learning curve in doing so—not to mention all the issues uncovered as they went down this route—and the time people spent on this stuff cost money as well. Most of the other consumer-focused ISPs are simply waiting for companies like Comcast to do all the time consuming leg work and then take advantage of the lessons learned.

Because not (literally) everyone is behind the curve as IPv6 goes. That's still not a good excuse. If the industry as a whole (consumer/business ISPs, CDNs, content providers, transit providers and so forth) worked on this years ago the situation would be so much further ahead, but since the collective group dragged their feet as much as they have it has set back the progress so much.

WhatNow
Premium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable

One reason the ISPs did not rush into this was the customers did not see any reason to buy v6 end equipment because the v4 worked fine and they could not get v6. The only reason anybody is doing anything is they have run out of IPv4. AT&T is going to NAT their Uverse system so those customers will be on IPv4 for a long time. This is a chicken and egg problem. This will only work when the end equipment can support both IPv4 and v6 so when the ISP upgrades the customer equipment can use the IPv6.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

And that's part of what I said. Because everyone was not working together. That's debatable if v4 was "working fine", it really is not/was not; it was not designed for the Internet as it is in modern times and is too limited with its address space, but there are other gains to be had as well. Rolling out v6 is not about extending v4. That's a common fallacy. Rolling out only CGNAT doesn't allow people to reach v6 networks/content. Of course it is a chicken and egg problem, way to state the painfully obvious. But if everyone was working together it wouldn't be such a ridiculously slow move forward instead of dragging their feet incessantly. The CPE issue hasn't been an issue for awhile now; it's the same old tired excuse that keeps being repeated over and over again. Enough of the excuses and move forward.


ccjunk

join:2006-06-29
Austin, TX

1 recommendation

reply to Bink

said by Bink:

Means once your local environment supports IPv6—router, operating system and whatnot—you won’t need NAT and you’ll be able to start using IPv6 to connect to sites that natively support it.

Even if your local network and hosts are IPv6, you will still need IPv4 NAT for a very long time. As long as the Internet destinations you want to go to are IPv4 only you are going to need IPv4 and NAT in your home network.

Google, Yahoo (in part), Facebook (in part) support IPv6 because of evangelists at those companies. Most content companies could care less since their business is about their content and not network technology. Even if their hosting provider supports IPv6 the content provider has no motivation to support it.

It will be a very long time before the IPv6 Internet has the same content/app coverage of the IPv4 Internet. We are not going to be able to turn off IPv4 use (and the associated NAT at your home network) for years.