IPv6 when?

[#1]

Quote from: avatastic

Quote from: SimonHobson I have one of those, but I'm planning on switching to a Draytek Vigor 120 before the trial. I've seen nothing to suggest the DM111P supports IPv6, and because it does the PPP stuff with the ISP, IPv6 support would be needed in this device. The V120 just acts as a PPPoA over ADSL to PPPoE over ethernet bridge - and so the device behind it does the PPP and so the modem is transparent to the protocols used. The DM111P can also operate in 'bridged' mode, which how I plan to use mine with IPv6 (and how I currently use it with IPv4) Quote No doubt someone will now tell me I'm wrong and the DM111P does do IPv6 Not wrong, just misguided

Well I finally got around to looking at this, and whilst RFC<whatever> bridge mode would have dealt with my IPv4 problems had I noticed it when I put the DM111P in ::), the modem is still doing the PPPo[AE] stuff - so I can't see it working with IPv6 natively without a firmware update. As it happens we had a spare Vigor 120 modem lying around at work which I've "borrowed", and since that means I'm running the PPP stack on my GNU/Linux box then I'm ready to go once this trial kicks off.

[#2]

Hi,
I'm very interested in an IPv6 trial (I asked support about any plans in this area earlier this year but there were none which was disappointing) but it's great to see Plusnet doing something now and I'm very keen to get IPv6 connectivity (so much so that if it wasn't for getting on the FTTC trial I would likely have already moved to another ISP)
My only concern is with the Netgear WNR1000v3 (N150) router which plusnet supplied me with at the start of the FTTC trial, which doesn't support IPv6, and as far as I can determine from Netgear's technical non-support, doesn't work with the IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel providers (at least it didn't seem to work, and when I contacted them failed to get a straight answer - http://goo.gl/A6i4U if you want the full transcript)
So does anyone know of a way to get the Netgear to support IPv6 (I'd consider flashing the firmware, or using my DG834GT), and if not, can anyone recommend a replacement router assuming I can get on the trial (and assuming plusnet isn't going to provide me with one!)
I'm assuming this wouldn't result in the loss of my static IPv4 address, since I run services off that at present.

[#3]

Quote from: sxa

My only concern is with the Netgear WNR1000v3 (N150) router which plusnet supplied me with at the start of the FTTC trial, which doesn't support IPv6, and as far as I can determine from Netgear's technical non-support, doesn't work with the IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel providers (at least it didn't seem to work, and when I contacted them failed to get a straight answer - http://goo.gl/A6i4U if you want the full transcript)

Hmm, they do seem to be in a race to the bottom in the support stakes. Sad because they used to be quite good.

Quote

So does anyone know of a way to get the Netgear to support IPv6 (I'd consider flashing the firmware, or using my DG834GT), and if not, can anyone recommend a replacement router assuming I can get on the trial (and assuming plusnet isn't going to provide me with one!)

For other reasons I run my router on a LInux machine (actually a VM under Xen), and I've recently switch to using a Draytek Vigor V120 modem for the ADSL side. This just converts between PPPoA cells and PPPoE frames so all the protocol handling is done by the attached machine (in my case, a generic Linux box). Until the trial starts I can't be 100% certain it will work - isn't that what trials are for ?
As for your router and setting up a tunnel, then I'd suggest you try configuring the "DMZ" or Server option. I think all the Netgear routers I've configured have had the option to have all traffic not already mapped to other machines NATted to a single internal machine. Since this is doing a one-to-one address mapping, it may well map traffic other than TCP/UDP and so you may get protocol 41. Also, see if VPN passthrough is enabled since protocol 41 is used by some types of VPN.

Quote

I'm assuming this wouldn't result in the loss of my static IPv4 address, since I run services off that at present.

NO, as long as you use the same PPP login credentials, it shouldn't affect your IPv4 addressing.

[#4]

+1 interested - vigor 120 + flashed WRT54G (OpenWRT) - running vSphere lab behind so lots of other options
Paul

[#5]

I would be very interested in taking part in the IPv6 trial, but currently have a Linksys WAG200G router which is a bit out of date. Can anyone point me to a list of IPv6 compatible modem/routers? Thanks.

[#6]

I am not a techie and am struggling to understand this IPv6 business.
Regarding the question of router compatibility, I read this comment by Steve Gibson on his GRC Ngs and would be interested to know if this is likely to be PN's approach, or is it expecting too much:
"As Internet providers themselves move to adopt IPv6, it really won't be possible for them to tell their existing (or
probably their future) customers that all-of-a-sudden it's going to be necessary for the customer to upgrade every one of their
connected devices to IPv6.
In many cases that just won't be possible, even if the customer desired to.  There are so many old OSes and connected devices --
like my three old TiVos -- that will *never* have native IPv6 support.
So the natural solution will be for cable/DSL boxes to perhaps perform the IPv6/IPv4 translation themselves, or for them to add
a new form of cross-version, IPv6-to-IPv4 NAT routing so that the user's internal network remains unchanged even though what's
out on the WAN side is completely different."

[#7]

SG's comment mirrors my own thoughts.
I've just so many network devices, that long and short aren't going to be updated.... I've PDAs from the 90's that can't even manage WPA let alone IPv6.  Old laptops that are pushed by Windows 98.  Internet radio on my TV Amp.... Doubt it.  And the. We get onto the more embedded stuff, routers that weren't supported last year so doubt anything will change.
Some sort of dual stack or tunnelling will be required in my house for many years to come.

[#8]

IPV6 to put it in a way people can understand.  Remember back in the old days when an area code (mine for instance) for telephone would be 07xx?  BT needed more numbers so my area code became 017xx and London (and other large areas) became 02xxx.  IPV4 is a bit like the old telephone code, 07xx which means we're fast running out of numbers for people to use.  If we were still using 07xx then no one would be getting a new phone number because BT would have run out.  IPV6 adds the 01 (or 02, or maybe a lot more) to an IP address meaning it's unlikely that we'll run out of IPV6 addresses and so people can connect to the internet.
Old equipment won't work with IPV6, it's true, but my old serial scanner won't work with my current computer (no serial port) and my old printer (parallel) won't work either.  PlusNet will be alright for IPV4 addresses for a long time, they won't suddenly run out, but the internet itself will start to slowly convert over to IPV6 so if you want to visit http://ipv6.google.com you'll need an IPV6 address, without that address you can't visit the IPV6 internet.  To use the phone analogy again, IPV4 is just a (6 digit) telephone number, IPV6 adds an area code, without IPV6 you can only dial people who are in your area code.  That make sense? It did when I wrote it.

[#9]

It all sounds most patronising (and wrong).

[#10]

Quote from: Heloman

I am not a techie and am struggling to understand this IPv6 business. Regarding the question of router compatibility, I read this comment by Steve Gibson on his GRC Ngs and would be interested to know if this is likely to be PN's approach, or is it expecting too much:

What will happen, at least for a while, is that you'll get TWO addresses - an IPv4 address like you do now, and an IPv6 block which is new. Reasonably modern devices will get IPv6 addresses as well as having a private (usually 192.168.something) address, old devices will just get an IPv4 address.
Few SERVERS will be IPv6 only, so for a good while there will be no problem connecting to them with IPv4.
What will happen is that as the regional registries run out of IPv4 addresses, and then the ISPs run out of addresses, there won't be enough to give every customer a public IPv4 address. At that point (and it already happens on many (most ?) mobile network connections), ISP will use NAT to share a pool of addresses between a larger number of customers - so instead of having your own address, you'll be sharing one with a few other customers. This works fine for a lot of stuff (browsing the internet and so on), but doesn't work if you want to run a server, and makes peer-peer networks tricky. I predict that ISPs will charge extra for a native IPv4 address, just like many of them charge extra for a fixed address now.
As we go on, more and more will become IPv6 connected, and more and more will become only partially IPv4 connected (connected, but not "properly as it's behind NAT). Eventually we will start to see some classes of service becoming IPv6 only - this is most likely to happen for "new stuff" where not supporting legacy computers isn't that big a deal. IPv4 isn't going to disappear overnight.
In my own area of interest, I've been an Apple user for many, many years. Go back a a bit and Macs did AppleTalk for networking, with IP a possibility if you installed the right software etc. After a while, IP became a standard part of the OS, and slowly stuff started to migrate. With OS 10.5 (IIRC), AppleTalk support has been dropped and there's so little left that's AppleTalk only that few noticed - I noticed as I have a printer that doesn't do IP.
It's taken two decades to get from "IP as a niche requirement for people with a lot of computer skills" to "IP as standard and few actually notice". The parallel is that we are at the "IPv6 is a niche interest for people with computer skills" stage of IPv6 adoption, in a decade or so we'll wonder what all the fuss was about.

[#11]

CGN = Carrier Grade NAT. In other words customers would be assigned a private IP to their router e.g. 10.0.0.1 which would be NAT'd on our side so you essentially end up with 2 levels of NAT. Any traffic you do out to the Internet would get NAT'd by us and similarly you wouldn't be able to host anything as it would be NAT'd on our side but without any ability to port forward. It's something we have on the "may have to do" list but with any luck IPv6 will be available first.

[#12]

Hi Folks,
I've added the following users to the list of potential IPv6 trialists...
rogerhardiman
cdosrun
wayneandleanne
grahamt
seanyseansean
dasx199
If I've missed you then give us a shout.
Jojo

[#13]

Quote from: Joanne

I've added the following users to the list of potential IPv6 trialists... ...

Your post is ambiguous - is that a list of everyone who is on the list, or just those you've added since an unspecified date/time ?
If it's the former then there are a lot of names missing (have you been through the whole thread, I'm sure there's been more than that short list expressed an interest - and I'm missing), if it's the latter then we have no way of knowing if we are, or aren't, on the list prior to those being added !

Also, how will the trial work - in terms of people actually joining in ? You've got a list of names gathered from this thread, but that won't necessarily get your their PlusNet user ids which I assume would be needed.

[#14]

Yes, sorry, That's not all I have added but the people who've requested it since I've last updated. Throughout the thread anyone who has asked, I have come back to them to say I've added them. So, what I should have said is if I haven't confirmed you've been added then shout up.
As for knowing the plusnet IDs we get them from your forum details.
Jojo

[#15]

You'll want my force9 id (dsmirc) in that case, as my plusnet forum id is a free payg account