IPv6 when?

[#1]

Quote from: Joanne

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.

In that case, can you confirm I'm on the list (and add me if I'm not) - I've just looked back through the whole thread to check.
Perhaps it might be easier if you posted the whole list and then people will know for certain.

[#2]

I'd love to be on the trial.
Wireless Router TG585V8

[#3]

Does IPV6 have any advantages over IPV4?
Can't see any, myself.

[#4]

Quote

Does IPV6 have any advantages over IPV4?

I believe its best not to try and think of it in practical terms as it will make no difference at all to the end user. However its a fact we need to face that that IPV4 addresses will deplete and the format of V6 will be more sustainable.

[#5]

Hi avatastic,
Yes I already have the correct one, thanks.
Jojo

[#6]

Quote from: A

Does IPV6 have any advantages over IPV4? Can't see any, myself.

There are quite a few, but a lot depend on circumstances of where and how it's used and of course may also required it to be properly exploited i.e. not just simply deployed as a new way of doing what we've always done.
Off the top of my head:
1. Larger address space - probably the most common benefit, and perhaps takes the limelight a little too much. The benefit here is not only having sufficient addresses to cater for all the devices we want to network but also that they can be uniquely addressed to support true end-to-end connectivity where required.
2. Greater routing efficiency - largely by virtue of the larger address space allowing greater hierarchical allocation but also support for header compression.
3. Stateless auto-configuration - adhoc network formulation is possible without prior configuration or pre-existence of support services (e.g. DHCP servers).
4. Greater multicasting support - ideal for our bandwidth-hungry streaming services that we're seeing more and more of.
6. Mobile IP - mobility is practically unworkable with IPv4 however with native support for it in IPv6 we will be able to transfer devices seamlessly between networks to accomodate the increasing desire for always-on and always-connected devices.
There will inevitably be others that haven't sprung to (my) mind as well as other benefits that can be realised in the future - just as we have done by retrofitting enhancements to IPv4.
Mathew

[#7]

Hi Folks,
You can view the full list of people who have requested to go on the trial here, so any more requests can be posted in that thread,
Thanks,
Jojo

[#8]

Do you need an Ipv6 capable router to take part in the trial, and which makes do, apparently none of the
current Linksys according to their support ?

[#9]

This goes back to what I was suggesting yesterday with this quote:
"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."
I also read that:
"As long as your ISP does support IPv6 then your routers don’t need to – the ISP can do a Network Address Translation on your behalf."
Grateful if PN would comment on the necessity for IPv6-compatible routers.

[#10]

Quote from: Hary

Do you need an Ipv6 capable router to take part in the trial, and which makes do, apparently none of the current Linksys according to their support ?

Yes, you need an IPv6 capable router. Unfortunately that's one of the almost missing pieces to the jigsaw puzzle - there is b***er all CPE (without going high end and hence expensive) that does IPv6, and since most of their customers can't do it then that's an incentive for the more 20th century ISPs to bury their heads in the sand and pretend it's not going to happen. And so the cycle comes round to the CPE manufacturers not wanting to invest because the ISPs servicing the bulk of their customers don't support IPv6, and ISPs not wanting to invest in something the bulk of their customers can't use.
It will come in time, now that at least some of the industry (both ISPs and CPE manufacturers) are waking up to the fact that it's here and it's not going to go away.
It does seem like DD-WRt and OpenWRT support IPv6, so it may be possible to reflash your router with one of those and get IPv6 support that way - but that is definitely getting into geek territory and is not a "click a few buttons" option.

Quote from: Heloman

This goes back to what I was suggesting yesterday with this quote: "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."

Correct, no ISP is going to turn off IPv4 for a long time to come, dual stack is going to be the standard for a great many years. But, it's going to get harder to have a real, public routable IPv4 address and (especially for new entrants to the market without an existing large allocation) ISPs are going to start using CGN (carrier Grade NAT) to share a limited pool of IPv4 addresses between customers. In the UK, this is the norm anyway for people using mobile data.

Quote

I also read that: "As long as your ISP does support IPv6 then your routers don’t need to – the ISP can do a Network Address Translation on your behalf."

That is soooo wrong. The last thing we need is ISPs doing compatibility mode NAT (4to6 NAT ?), that both extends the transition period AND adds more problems. It may become a requirement at some point when people start running IPv6 only services, but quite frankly if an ISP is clued up enough to run 4to6 NAT then it might just as well go the whole hog and run IPv6 dual stack alongside IPv4. Realistically it's going to be many years of transition, and just natural replacement (either upgrading for better wireless, new features, or just replacing broken kit) will take care of a large proportion of users. If the CPE vendors can get their digit out of their orifice and implement it right, many users could be using IPv6 without even realising it.
IMO the only time when it would make sense to use 6to4 NAT would be to support devices that are IPv4 only but need to connect to IPv6 servers. Personally I think this is going to be a rare requirement for some time, and people who need to accept connections from such devices are most likely already running with an IPv4 address which they'll just carry on using.

[#11]

So if I make use of this CGN lash-up and I want to access a computer on some other CGN by using it's IPV4 IP address (e.g. in a P2P application), how does this work?
Or does it just fail?

[#12]

Quote from: A

So if I make use of this CGN lash-up and I want to access a computer on some other CGN by using it's IPV4 IP address (e.g. in a P2P application), how does this work? Or does it just fail?

It just fails 
But that is very much like the situation now where just about most users are behind their own local NAT gateway - the big difference is that with your own gateway you can set up port forwarding which will work for most applications, while with CGN you don't have this facility. There are techniques that sometimes make incoming connections appear to work, but they aren't guaranteed.
Having dealt with networks for a while, I can tell you that an awful lot of developer effort is wasted on making stuff work with NAT, and if we get rid of it (as we can with IPv6) developers will be free to concentrate on productive work rather than working round the thoroughly broken bodge that is NAT. With some NAT gateways (Zyxel come to mind), they deliberately make stuff more broken than it needs to be in the name of "security" - leading me to tell people more than once to drop the pile of s**t in the bin and buy something else. Memorise this mantra - "NAT equals broken<period>"* - and you might start to realise why some people are so keen to get IPv6 off the ground.
* Rule number one of IP - every device must have a globally unique and routable address. Absolutely and fundamentally broken by NAT.
Yes, you may sense that I'm a tad passionate about this subject

[#13]

I like NAT - it is an excellent security feature.
If they can't see me (unless I allow it) then I'm pretty secure.

[#14]

NAT is not a firewall or a security feature. 

[#15]

Don't be tempted to feed the troll...