dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Comcast Launching IPV6-Enabled Commercial Broadband Services
While 3% of Residential Users Actively Using IPv6
by Karl Bode 08:47AM Friday Apr 19 2013
Comcast continues to lead the telecom industry push toward IPv6 while many broadband providers nap. The company this week announced that they're planning on expanding their IPv6-based business offerings with the launch of commercial broadband and Metro Ethernet services supporting IPv6 later this year. "We've completed the rollout of IPv6 on half of our broadband network," Comcast Engineer John Brzozowski tells Network World. "Wherever we've upgraded our network, that's where we are going to start with our commercial broadband service." Residential broadband IPv6 deployment should be finished this year, with Comcast saying 3% of those users are actively using IPv6.

view:
topics flat nest 

IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1

Mine is still ipv4

Mine is still ipv4.
weaver

join:2001-12-13
Alexandria, VA

Re: Mine is still ipv4

I'm one of the 3%. I have a Motorola SB6121, which I own. It went IPV6 when it got a firmware update, maybe a month ago. One of the reasons I bought it was IPV6 compatibility.

IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1

Re: Mine is still ipv4

I have a 6120 and an Apple AirPort Extreme router.
34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
said by IowaCowboy:

Mine is still ipv4.

You're in an area being serviced by Cisco CMTS'. That will be v6 enabled later in the year once Comcast rolls out newer firmware for their CMTS'.

IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast

Re: Mine is still ipv4

said by 34764170:

said by IowaCowboy:

Mine is still ipv4.

You're in an area being serviced by Cisco CMTS'. That will be v6 enabled later in the year once Comcast rolls out newer firmware for their CMTS'.

Our area is a Motorola area in terms of set-tops.
--
I've experienced ImOn (when they were McLeod USA), Mediacom, Comcast, and Time Warner and I currently have DirecTV. They are much better than broadcast TV.

I have not and will not cut the cord.
34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

Re: Mine is still ipv4

said by IowaCowboy:

Our area is a Motorola area in terms of set-tops.

The set-tops in use are not what matters. A lot of MSOs use multiple set-top vendors just as they use multiple modem / gateway vendors. The CMTS vendor is what matters.

PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD

1 recommendation

IPv6 Router Comptability

The problem is many consumer routers do not support IPv6. Even those who pfSense, like myself, don't have IPv6 compatibility out the box.

To that point, many devices which support third-party firmware such as DD-WRT and Tomato lack the necessary ROM space to support IPv6.
34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

Re: IPv6 Router Comptability

said by PapaMidnight:

The problem is many consumer routers do not support IPv6. Even those who pfSense, like myself, don't have IPv6 compatibility out the box.

To that point, many devices which support third-party firmware such as DD-WRT and Tomato lack the necessary ROM space to support IPv6.

More or less every router from the major brands out of the box supports IPv6 now and a lot of the older stuff has firmware upgrades to add support too. pfSense has IPv6 support with their 2.1 release.

Hardware that does not have the ROM space is already at the end of its lifespan or has already passed it. Hardware will be replaced over time with refreshes.

The idea is to roll it out on the network side and have more and more users become v6 enabled as time goes on and that will happen.

PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD

1 recommendation

Re: IPv6 Router Comptability

2.1 is not presently stable; and while it is possible that those devices have reached their EoL, many a consumer likely recently (within the past two years) purchased a Wireless-N consumer router with no IPv6 support.

I also doubt that the average consumer knows what IPv6 (or v4 for that matter) even is. To them, they have perfectly functional devices with no incentive to upgrade.

Since these have ben EoL'd, there is no further development of firmware either by the first party (and these routers, more often than not, do not support an IPv6 capable version of dd-wrt or tomato); and I'm certainly not going to try to tell the average internet user how to switch over to DD-WRT, or convince them they need to spend money preliminarily with a new wifi spec on the horizon and their device is still operational.

Therefore, while it indeed may be the case that newer routers are available with IPv6, the sheer proliferation of IPv4 devices that lack IPv6 support (many of which are still stocked, priced low, and more likely for a consumer to buy at $49.99 than a new model at $89.99) makes deployment en mass difficult without direct ISP intervention or a concerted effort from device manufacturers to deploy firmware updates to older devices (Especially Linksys whose older firmware is riddled with known security holes that remain unpatched).
34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

Re: IPv6 Router Comptability

You just ignored most of what I said and kept blabbering on.

PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD

Re: IPv6 Router Comptability

Actually, I addressed every single point. I also provided real-world rationale for why your reasoning is not effective.

You chose to see it as a tl;dr and consider it "blabbering" - but to each their own.

jjmb

join:2009-12-01
USA
I worked with pfSense a while ago, they should have a version that supports IPv6 and has been informally tested on the Comcast network.

John

axiomatic

join:2006-08-23
Tomball, TX

1 recommendation

IPV6

I am using IPV6 with pfsense in my house. PLEX can use it and so can all my devices that use PLEX but alas Comcast Houston has not deployed it yet. I really have no reason to use it at this point though, more just to learn it.
doofoo

join:2002-01-21
Upper Marlboro, MD

Business Class Static IP Customer

Still IPv4 only.. Way to go Comcast!

aefstoggaflm
Open Source Fan
Premium
join:2002-03-04
Bethlehem, PA
kudos:7

Re: Business Class Static IP Customer

I point to »[IPv6] Comcast Business IPV6 trials
--
Please use the "yellow (IM) envelope" to contact me and please leave the URL intact.

AnonMe

@comcastbusiness.net

Who are the 3%?

Given the lack of CPE support, does that roughly 3% of Comcast's customers have their computers plugged directly into their cable modems with no router or device in between?
Happydude32
Premium
join:2005-07-16
kudos:1

1 recommendation

Re: Who are the 3%?

Every single current model from Linksys is IPv6 Enabled. From their barebones basic $40 router to their $200 AC router, all 7 models are compatible.
34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

said by AnonMe :

Given the lack of CPE support, does that roughly 3% of Comcast's customers have their computers plugged directly into their cable modems with no router or device in between?

There is not a lack of CPE support. Almost every router from the major brands has v6 support out of the box now and most of the routers sold over the last 2-3 years has newer firmware with v6 support. ISPs will be rolling out firmware upgrades for their own provided CPE as Comcat has/will be doing.

jjmb

join:2009-12-01
USA

1 recommendation

The 3% is a pretty even split between standalone computers and routers that support IPv6. There is a shift we are seeing however, meaning more routers appearing compared to standalone computers.

John

silentlooker
Premium
join:2009-11-01

IPv6 is not needed

There is currently no need for IPv6 and it will be years if not longer before there is any need. This is being pushed by company's that make computer hardware such as routers.

XANAVirus
Premium
join:2012-03-03
Lavalette, WV
Reviews:
·Callcentric

1 recommendation

Re: IPv6 is not needed

So why not just start now anyway?
Why does IPv6 have to be pushed back even further than it should have been implemented?

I say IPv6 is 'needed' but not required right now.

Support for it is important, otherwise we'll never get away from IPv4 as the mainstream protocol (IPv4 will likely always be around in some capacity).

An effort should be made to educate the mainstream consumer about the new IPv6 protocol. Right now, I highly doubt anyone who is computer non-technical knows anything about IPv6 or IPv4.
coreyography
Premium
join:2010-01-15
Clute, TX

Re: IPv6 is not needed

Why not? Security, or potential lack thereof.

IPv6 is a protocol whose security weaknesses really haven't been tested on a widespread basis. I think I'll wait awhile to switch (as in, when I'm forced by my ISP, maybe in 5 or 10 years) and let the first few hundred million pioneers take the arrows in the back.

That, and the fact I have to run dual-stack or one of the other hack transition mechanisms to get to the entire Internet. Not worth my time and worry.
34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

1 recommendation

said by silentlooker:

There is currently no need for IPv6 and it will be years if not longer before there is any need. This is being pushed by company's that make computer hardware such as routers.

Nonsense. 2 of the 4 RIRs have already run out of IPv4 address space and the remaining 2 will be out fairly soon. You don't just flip a switch and expect 100% of the Internet to be enabled over night.

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2

Re: IPv6 is not needed

And how many of those blocks are actually being used rather than hoarded?
--
Nocchi rules.

aefstoggaflm
Open Source Fan
Premium
join:2002-03-04
Bethlehem, PA
kudos:7
Reviews:
·PenTeleData
·Verizon Online DSL

Re: IPv6 is not needed

said by skeechan:

And how many of those blocks are actually being used rather than hoarded?

Even if they were returned/sold, how long would that last?
--
Please use the "yellow (IM) envelope" to contact me and please leave the URL intact.

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2

Re: IPv6 is not needed

A long time. It is certainly taking long enough for this supposed end of the Internet world that has been going on for years now.
--
Nocchi rules.

aefstoggaflm
Open Source Fan
Premium
join:2002-03-04
Bethlehem, PA
kudos:7
Reviews:
·PenTeleData
·Verizon Online DSL

Re: IPv6 is not needed

said by skeechan:

A long time. It is certainly taking long enough for this supposed end of the Internet world that has been going on for years now.

How long is that long time?

Thanks
--
Please use the "yellow (IM) envelope" to contact me and please leave the URL intact.

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2

Re: IPv6 is not needed

Years.

anon ipv6

@rcn.com

Re: IPv6 is not needed

said by skeechan:

Years.

How many years?

That is not specific enough..

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FiOS

Re: IPv6 is not needed

Enough not to worry about it. The crying "Wolf" is getting old. There is no crisis. IP4 offers enough address space for an IP for nearly every man, woman and child on the face of the planet.

End the hoarding of IP space, NAT addresses the rest.

aefstoggaflm
Open Source Fan
Premium
join:2002-03-04
Bethlehem, PA
kudos:7
Reviews:
·PenTeleData
·Verizon Online DSL

Re: IPv6 is not needed

said by skeechan:

Enough not to worry about it. The crying "Wolf" is getting old. There is no crisis. IP4 offers enough address space for an IP for nearly every man, woman and child on the face of the planet.

End the hoarding of IP space, NAT addresses the rest.

I point to grc.com -> Services -> Security Now! -> Episode #371 | 26 Sep 2012 | 99 min. (Listener Feedback #151)

and quote the part that is related to what you just said.

quote:
Leo: All right. Here's a complicated one from Tom Ribbens in Belgium. And just as a setup, last time we talked about the fact that the British, like, retirement system or something has an entire /8 block of addresses, which they apparently don't use publicly. Now...

Steve: More than one 256th of the entire Internet's address space.

Leo: And of course, as you all know, with the current system, the IPv4 system, we just are - we've run out, in fact. We are out of addresses. So we'll have to move to IPv6. But in the meantime, a significant number, millions of addresses, are being kind of, well, it seems, misused by the British trust: Steve, I thought your discussion last week about the 51.0.0.0/8 - this address space we talked about - was completely off. You said, "Well, all they have to do is change the 51 to 10," which is of course an internal designation.

This is not as simple as you might think. This would take weeks of planning and preparation and will cause issues along the way. And what for? When the IANA still had blocks of IPs to give to the RIRs, I believe they were crunching through them at the rate of two /8s a month. That would mean, even if we got that /8 back, it would only move the problem away for a couple of weeks. Seeing that there is no way any sizeable organization could renumber their whole network in two weeks, this is not a viable trade off. Even if we would find 10 such companies who could give back /8 blocks back - and I think there are probably that many - it would still only help for another half year.

You know just as well as I do that the real solution is IPv6, and that adoption will only happen when everybody is forced to adapt. It might cause a little mayhem when it really will be absolutely necessary, but delaying it another year is not going to help a thing because we'll hardly be better prepared, as there's almost no incentive currently to do so. Tom Ribbens. I think he's right.

Steve: Well, yes. I guess the point was that there has historically been a huge amount of waste.

Leo: Right.

Steve: Because we thought, oh, 4.3 billion IPs, we'll never use all of those. And so, early on, huge blocks were being handed out very easily. So the way I view this is sort of a - is a struggle with tension between competing interests and the need to implement IPv6. The problem is people who already have allocations of IPv4 IPs, they want to keep them. They've had them for a long time. They figure that they're entitled to do so. And they probably have a good point. They could make that case convincingly.

At the same time, we need to move to IPv6, but it is a pain. I mean, it requires the replacement and upgrading in some cases of entire networks and switches and routers within a company. And you could also argue that any company that already has IPv4 is disinclined to move away from four over to six. IPv4 addressing will never go away. I mean, probably never. It was first - it will continue to be supported. New allocations at some point will have to be IPv6. But at the same time, looking at huge blocks of unused IPv4 does create some tension because it would be easier to reuse that than it would be to make the move to IPv6.

So first of all, I mean, the one area where I disagree with Tom is the rate of consumption. It is no longer the case that /8s are being consumed at the rate of several a month. Remember a /8, as I mentioned before, is a huge chunk of the Internet. It's about a 200th of the Internet, of the entire address space. That's massive. So today, now that we know IPv4 IPs are so scarce, they are being managed far more carefully than they were in the past.

So I just sort of see this as a set of competing pressures. There is pressure to better use existing IPv4 space. There is pressure to move to IPv6. And we are running out of IPv4 space over time. Yet people who have large allocations of IPv4 that they are not using, there's some argument to be made for freeing some of that up to release some of the pressure. But, yes, ultimately, new people are going to have to be using IPv6. We'll get to a point where there will be no more IPv4 space.

Leo: Yikes.

Steve: Yeah.

Leo: Yeah, I mean, and it seems wasteful. I guess you could go back and forth on this. And there's a large camp of people that say, well, look, we've just got to have the pain, or it's not going to happen. And I'm not sure I disagree with that. Because, I don't know, I think what's going to happen is you're going to have ISP NAT. We're never going to go to v6 at home. It's going to be the ISPs who do it all. And we're actually...

Steve: Yeah...

Leo: Go ahead.

Steve: Well, imagine that a company said to another, a squatter, we'll pay you X amount of money for a chunk of your IPv4 space that you're not using because it's easier for us and more cost-effective for us to do that than it is to move our infrastructure to IPv6. So that may happen. I did see some dollar signs associated with the value of IPv4 space. And it was stunning.

Leo: Well, yeah. Especially as it gets more valuable as there's less of it.

Steve: Yeah, I just think that what we'll see is future, like, existing companies that have been around that have IPv4 probably get to keep it. Now, if they're offered chunks of money, where it makes sense for them to move, well, maybe they'll choose to give up some. But new allocations will probably, by virtue of the fact that there won't be a choice, will be in IPv6.

--
Please use the "yellow (IM) envelope" to contact me and please leave the URL intact.

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Clear Wireless
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FiOS

Re: IPv6 is not needed

What we have is people crying about water scarcity while some users are watering the streets and sidewalks.

Sure, eventually we will move to IPv6, but the sky is not falling. We have been hearing for years now that the end is nigh, yet it wasn't then and it isn't now. There is no need rush IPv6, especially for residential applications. No one needs their smart fridge to have it's own IP on the Internetz.
--
Nocchi rules.
jm7

join:2013-05-17
Mableton, GA

1 recommendation

said by skeechan:

A long time. It is certainly taking long enough for this supposed end of the Internet world that has been going on for years now.

Actually, the time if all /8s that were allocated originally were to be returned till they ran out would be essentially no time instead of years. APNIC has been out for more than 2 years. At the time APNIC ran out they were using IPV4 addresses at a rate of about 15 /8s per year. RIPE (Europe) has been out for more than 6 months. At the time that they ran out they were using IPV4 addresses at a rate of about 3 /8s per year. This is a pent up demand in the Asia Pacific and Europe of more than 30 /8s. Even if we could get all the original /8s back instantly, the pent up demand would use almost all of them instantly.

We need to migrate to dual stack as soon as possible.

anon ipv6

@rcn.com
said by skeechan:

And how many of those blocks are actually being used rather than hoarded?

And how many are being used internally?

For example, at my work place.
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.
 
C:\Users\user-name>ipconfig /all
 
Windows IP Configuration
 
   Host Name . . . . . . . . . . . . : host-name
   Primary Dns Suffix  . . . . . . . : phi.org
   Node Type . . . . . . . . . . . . : Hybrid
   IP Routing Enabled. . . . . . . . : No
   WINS Proxy Enabled. . . . . . . . : No
   DNS Suffix Search List. . . . . . : phi.org
                                       appdev.dom
                                       cltest.dom
                                       ctxdc.dom
                                       messaging.dom
                                       prelude.dom
                                       test.dom
                                       host.dom
 
Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection:
 
   Connection-specific DNS Suffix  . : phi.org
   Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Intel(R) 82567V-4 Gigabit Network Connect
ion
   Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 2C-27-D7-**-**-**
   DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : Yes
   Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : Yes
   IPv4 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 192.10.6.74(Preferred)
   Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
   Lease Obtained. . . . . . . . . . : Saturday, April 20, 2013 7:03:26 AM
   Lease Expires . . . . . . . . . . : Friday, April 26, 2013 7:03:26 AM
   Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.10.6.1
   DHCP Server . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.10.6.1
   DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : 10.17.254.11
                                       10.17.254.21
   NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . . . : Enabled
 
C:\Users\user-name>
 

192.10.6.1 is not NAT and yet it is used internally...

PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD

1 recommendation

Re: IPv6 is not needed

said by anon ipv6 :

said by skeechan:

And how many of those blocks are actually being used rather than hoarded?

And how many are being used internally?

For example, at my work place.
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.
 
C:\Users\user-name>ipconfig /all
 
Windows IP Configuration
 
   Host Name . . . . . . . . . . . . : host-name
   Primary Dns Suffix  . . . . . . . : phi.org
   Node Type . . . . . . . . . . . . : Hybrid
   IP Routing Enabled. . . . . . . . : No
   WINS Proxy Enabled. . . . . . . . : No
   DNS Suffix Search List. . . . . . : phi.org
                                       appdev.dom
                                       cltest.dom
                                       ctxdc.dom
                                       messaging.dom
                                       prelude.dom
                                       test.dom
                                       host.dom
 
Ethernet adapter Local Area Connection:
 
   Connection-specific DNS Suffix  . : phi.org
   Description . . . . . . . . . . . : Intel(R) 82567V-4 Gigabit Network Connect
ion
   Physical Address. . . . . . . . . : 2C-27-D7-**-**-**
   DHCP Enabled. . . . . . . . . . . : Yes
   Autoconfiguration Enabled . . . . : Yes
   IPv4 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 192.10.6.74(Preferred)
   Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
   Lease Obtained. . . . . . . . . . : Saturday, April 20, 2013 7:03:26 AM
   Lease Expires . . . . . . . . . . : Friday, April 26, 2013 7:03:26 AM
   Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.10.6.1
   DHCP Server . . . . . . . . . . . : 192.10.6.1
   DNS Servers . . . . . . . . . . . : 10.17.254.11
                                       10.17.254.21
   NetBIOS over Tcpip. . . . . . . . : Enabled
 
C:\Users\user-name>
 

192.10.6.1 is not NAT and yet it is used internally...

...and should not be.

PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD

1 recommendation

said by silentlooker:

There is currently no need for IPv6 and it will be years if not longer before there is any need.

This could not be further from the truth.

As brad has mentioned, APNIC is reassigning /8 level addresses to mitigate the fact that all other blocks have been exhausted, RIPE ran out of available address to allocate in September last year, and ARIN is taking steps for mitigation at this moment.
dwk789

join:2009-01-21
Murfreesboro, TN

Re: IPv6 is not needed

So perhaps someone can answer a question I have always had about the IPv4/IPv6 transition. Can you not route between the two? How does that work? My thought is if the internet goes all IPv6 can't I still run a private IPv4 network on my side of my internet connection? Won't it continue to just work fine? That being the case do I really ever need IPv6 on my network or replace or upgrade my current equipment? I just ask this as I don't know these answers to these questions and maybe someone can explain how the routing between the two works?
jm7

join:2013-05-17
Mableton, GA

1 recommendation

Re: IPv6 is not needed

said by dwk789:

So perhaps someone can answer a question I have always had about the IPv4/IPv6 transition. Can you not route between the two? How does that work? My thought is if the internet goes all IPv6 can't I still run a private IPv4 network on my side of my internet connection? Won't it continue to just work fine? That being the case do I really ever need IPv6 on my network or replace or upgrade my current equipment? I just ask this as I don't know these answers to these questions and maybe someone can explain how the routing between the two works?

It is possible, but very difficult to route between the two. Someone, somewhere has to operate a NAT64 service. Since some protocols have IP addresses embedded (fact, not going away, not intended to start a discussion about whether this is good or not), and IPV6 addresses are 4 times as long as IPV4 addresses, some protocols may not be translatable between IPV4 and IPV6.

The best means for the migration is dual stack. Dual stack is where the end point speaks IPV4 and IPV6 both, and can therefor speak to both IPV4 only and IPV6 only endpoints. It is possible to package IPV4 in an IPV6 packet to traverse a portion of IPV6 only network. It is also possible to package IPV6 in an IPV4 packet to traverse a section of IPV4 only network. It would be the responsibility of the last dual stack piece on either side of the IPVX only segment to do the packaging and unpackaging. These are called tunnels. Gogo6, Hurricane Electric, and a few others are tunnel brokers. One end of the tunnel is at their end and the other is on your network someplace.

As to security: IPV6 is not less secure than IPV4. Both of them require a firewall to be secure.