Time Warner Cable - Legacy → Re: [Internet] Disappearing IPv6

So, thanks to PhilB at TWC, we now know what the problem is...there is a bug in the current FW of the 6183. Apparently it's the same bug that Comcast and Arris identified back in October but TWC is just figuring it out now. TWC is testing the 6183 FW that is being used at Comcast. TWC expects to roll the new FW out in a month or so. In the meantime, your options are to wait it out for the new FW, or else blow another $150 and get a SB 6190, which apparently works now (and can also bind 32 downstream channels, maybe future-proofing yourself a bit.)

I'm just down 190 from you in Cove. Has your area gotten Maxx yet?

Nope. I stopped in at the TWC office in Temple yesterday and asked them if they had any news on MAXX. The CSR there, whom I've know for a number of years told me that there's no news on MAXX for our crazy hole along I-35 from north of Austin to Dallas. He thinks that TWC is going to leave it to Charter to do any further upgrades in our area. I don't know what to make of it. We've been bonding 16x4 channels here for several months, so they could do it if they want to. I've given up...I figure it'll happen if and when it happens. But I am not happy about paying the same monthly price for 50/5 that people just down the road pay for 300/20.

quote:

---

Nope. I stopped in at the TWC office in Temple yesterday and asked them if they had any news on MAXX. The CSR there, whom I've know for a number of years told me that there's no news on MAXX for our crazy hole along I-35 from north of Austin to Dallas. He thinks that TWC is going to leave it to Charter to do any further upgrades in our area. I don't know what to make of it. We've been bonding 16x4 channels here for several months, so they could do it if they want to. I've given up...I figure it'll happen if and when it happens. But I am not happy about paying the same monthly price for 50/5 that people just down the road pay for 300/20.

---

I feel the the same way about the mess that has been the Maxx upgrades here. If they are waiting for Charter we will be stuck for a while as I don't expect them to roll out new services quickly. Wish there was another alternative in my area but sadly nothing out here can compete on speed.

I started a thread about this in the TWC IPv6 forum. I was told by the (presumably tier 3) support person that picked up my issue that the best thing to do if I wanted native IPv6 now was switch to a new CM while TWC sorts it out. So I reverted to my 6141 while I was waiting for a CM600. Both the 6141 and the CM600 are passing IPv6. I started another thread about the OSPREY update versus the 6183 blocking traffic but I'm not hopeful about seeing any resolution.

I haven't heard about 6190 but I did want to get away from the 6121/6141/6183 series to avoid the remote reboot/reset problem.

Technically it's the config file which TWC pushed to the modem which is blocking IPv6. There is no reason they couldn't add a few lines to the config files of other modems and block them as well.What makes you think the 6190 isn't vulnerable? It has a no-login-needed reboot button just like the others you listed.

Is there evidence on the CM (event log or config) that one can check to see if it's blocking IPv6. I saw some comments about that but I wasn't aware that TWC had taken that somewhat radical step. Since IPv6 is supported one would think they would make some sort of announcement.

I don't know about the 6190's management interface. That's why I said "I haven't heard about [the] 6190". I did ask about it in another thread.

On the 6183 go to »192.168.100.1/RgCmConfig ··· tion.asp and search for 1.3.6.1.2.1.69.1.6.2.1.5 . My config file from 1/19/2016 had:

1.3.6.1.2.1.69.1.6.1.0 = 1 (i32) <- default action "drop"
1.3.6.1.2.1.69.1.6.2.1.2.20 = 4 (i32)
1.3.6.1.2.1.69.1.6.2.1.3.20 = 0 (i32)
1.3.6.1.2.1.69.1.6.2.1.4.20 = 1 (i32)
1.3.6.1.2.1.69.1.6.2.1.5.20 = 2048 (i32) <- allow EtherType 0x0800 (IPv4)
1.3.6.1.2.1.69.1.6.2.1.2.22 = 4 (i32)
1.3.6.1.2.1.69.1.6.2.1.3.22 = 0 (i32)
1.3.6.1.2.1.69.1.6.2.1.4.22 = 1 (i32)
1.3.6.1.2.1.69.1.6.2.1.5.22 = 2054 (i32) <- allow EtherType 0x0806 (ARP)
1.3.6.1.2.1.69.1.6.2.1.2.24 = 4 (i32)
1.3.6.1.2.1.69.1.6.2.1.3.24 = 0 (i32)
1.3.6.1.2.1.69.1.6.2.1.4.24 = 1 (i32)
1.3.6.1.2.1.69.1.6.2.1.5.24 = 34525 (i32) <- allow EtherType 0x86DD (IPv6)
 

However the config file my modem's currently pulling doesn't have that last part, it only has:

1.3.6.1.2.1.69.1.6.1.0 = 1 (i32)
1.3.6.1.2.1.69.1.6.2.1.2.20 = 4 (i32)
1.3.6.1.2.1.69.1.6.2.1.3.20 = 0 (i32)
1.3.6.1.2.1.69.1.6.2.1.4.20 = 1 (i32)
1.3.6.1.2.1.69.1.6.2.1.5.20 = 2048 (i32)
1.3.6.1.2.1.69.1.6.2.1.2.22 = 4 (i32)
1.3.6.1.2.1.69.1.6.2.1.3.22 = 0 (i32)
1.3.6.1.2.1.69.1.6.2.1.4.22 = 1 (i32)
1.3.6.1.2.1.69.1.6.2.1.5.22 = 2054 (i32)
 

For reference:
1.3.6.1.3.83.1.6.1.0 docsDevFilterLLCDefault
1.3.6.1.3.83.1.6.2.1.2.x docsDevFilterLLCStatus
1.3.6.1.3.83.1.6.2.1.3.x docsDevFilterLLCIfIndex
1.3.6.1.3.83.1.6.2.1.4.x docsDevFilterLLCProtocolType
1.3.6.1.3.83.1.6.2.1.5.x docsDevFilterLLCProtocol

Bold yet rude.