IPv6 when?

[#1]

Quote from: SimonHobson

OK - please suggest how to do this, because as far as I can see, this is a mode that is notsupported by this device.

OK, a quick Google shows that (in some countries at least) the DM111P has an option for RFC2684 bridging and just needs VPI & VCI. This is the same as the D-Link DSL-320B which is functionally similar (ie is really a cut-down modem/router more than an ATM modem) and is working well here talking to pppd on a Linux box. Is it possible the Netgear DM111P UK firmware doesn't have this option?
According to the Draytek user guide the V120 is functionally similar to the DM111P and DSL-320B and isn't just an ATM modem.

[#2]

[adw@skynet ~]$ telnet 192.168.1.1
Trying 192.168.1.1...
Connected to dm111.
Escape character is '^]'.
Netgear DM111 ADSL2+ Modem
Software Version: 3.30j
Login name: adw
Password:
> swversion show
 Firmware Version: 3.30j
 ADSL Driver Version: A2pB021g.d19b

I can't remember if I flashed it or not to 3.30j

[#3]

Quote from: dave

...in the spec to work in the early versions of firmware we're going to testing with:

Thanks Dave. Does this mean you have CPE to trial as well? Will this be available in April too?

Quote from: dave

Our initial trial phase is expected to be run as dual stack IPv4/IPv6 with the possibility of being able to move to dual stack IPv4 Carrier Grade NAT/IPv6 later on.

If dual stack is a success (and indications from other providers suggest that it should be) .... would you hope that everyone does it globally and wouldn't that avoid NAT?

[#4]

Quote from: MrToast

Quote from: dave Our initial trial phase is expected to be run as dual stack IPv4/IPv6 with the possibility of being able to move to dual stack IPv4 Carrier Grade NAT/IPv6 later on. If dual stack is a success (and indications from other providers suggest that it should be) .... would you hope that everyone does it globally and wouldn't that avoid NAT?

As long as there is IPv4 only stuff out there (and that's going to be a very long time), then PN will have to provide IPv4 connectivity. The "carrier grade NAT" was related to IPv4 - once they run out of IPv4 addresses and can't get any more then they'll be having to use NAT to connect customers.
I guess we'll start to see (across the industry) a move to a three tier approach to addresses. At present many ISPs charge a premium for a fixed IPv4 address - I think we'll start to see basic services with NAT, a premium for a real address, and a bigger premium for a fixed real address. I'd guess that for a great many people, the presence of NAT won't affect them in any way they notice.
None of this affects IPv6 which won't need NAT.

[#5]

Well, no one knows what will actually happen. However, I don't see the rationale for keeping IPv4 if we believe its going to get expensive / difficult. Surely that prospect would be a driver for rapid dual stacking by content providers to maintain access to IPv6 only clients.

[#6]

Quote from: MrToast

[...]I don't see the rationale for keeping IPv4 if we believe its going to get expensive / difficult. Surely that prospect would be a driver for rapid dual stacking by content providers to maintain access to IPv6 only clients.

It will be a driver, however there'll be no big bang when they all switch over in unison. It is therefore necessary for all concerned - consumers and providers - to essentially support both IPv4 and IPv6 for the 'interim' transitionary period. How long that interim period is going to be is anyone's guess (even down to rough orders of magnitudes)...
Mathew

[#7]

It's almost like the weakest link in the chain stuff, until everyone, and I mean everyone supports IPv6, then everyone will have to support IPv4.

[#8]

No body has to do anything. In fact many don't have IP anything at all at the moment. Those that do do so because of the imense benefit for the costs involved.
If the IPv4 network stops growing and the IPv6 network is the only expanding network why wouldn't there be a rapid migration to dual stack by the remaining 'IPv4 only' community for the same reason that there has been a rapid takeup of IPv4 in the first place?
If NAT is to be used to enable continued expansion of the IPv4 network then that comes at a cost. Would anyone choose that if faced with the cost especially when IPv6 is availble?

[#9]

Quote from: MrToast

If NAT is to be used to enable continued expansion of the IPv4 network then that comes at a cost. Would anyone choose that if faced with the cost especially when IPv6 is availble?

Those that hold the purse strings, and hence make the ultimate decision, may do so if the cost of remaining with IPv4 (and NAT) is less than than migrating to IPv6. Of course, the waters are muddied if factoring in short vs long term costs but many bean counters don't sit comfortable with a spend-to-save approach and are only concerned with the immediate operating costs. Unfortunately, in such scenarios the doing nothing/minimal option can be all too tempting because that might be all that is necessary to keep the wheels turning... for today at least! Carrier-grade IPv4 NAT might just fall into this category....
Mathew

[#10]

But, for a lot of people, NAT is a big benefit.
So I'd like IPV4 please. 

[#11]

Quote from: MrToast

Thanks Dave. Does this mean you have CPE to trial as well? Will this be available in April too?

Not yet but maybe later. The Thomson 585v8s we're shipping now are IPv6 capable with a firmware flash. I think that the Netgear WNR1000 we're shipping for FTTC either has already or shortly will have an IPv6 firmware and any other routers we ship from now on will be IPv6 capable (at least with a firmware update). So we will start to be able to test once we have the IPv6 firmwares for the routers we've already shipped.
At some point everyone is probably going to have to use both IPv4 and IPv6 as there will be areas of the Internet that are only available on one or the other. Imagine a new ISP or hosting company coming to the market in the UK once RIPE run out of IPv4 addresses, they'll be allocated IPv6 only so to be able to see their sites or communicate with their customers you'd need IPv6 too but another ISP may not have even started doing IPv6 so will only be available on IPv4. There may not be any hurry for them if they have plenty of IPv4 addresses going spare especially given that there's costs involved.
I can see IPv4 being around for a long time to come but it may be that for those that have IPv6 they only use a carrier grade NAT IPv4 service, time will tell.

[#12]

Quote from: SimonHobson

Quote from: cdosrun I have a Netgear DM111P as modem and small array of virtualised Gentoo servers on VLANs for firewall, DNS etc. 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. No doubt someone will now tell me I'm wrong and the DM111P does do IPv6

I was also having difficulty with the bridging and thought it was a VLAN issue, so switched to the Draytek 120 today; looks like it was the Netgear modem though, as it all works perfectly with PPP straight from the server through the VLAN. IPv6 tunnel is still working properly, so I think I am ready for a trial....

Andrew

[#13]

Quote from: dave

The Thomson 585v8s we're shipping now are IPv6 capable with a firmware flash.

Do you know whether the TG585 v7 can also support IPv6 with a firmware update?

[#14]

The Netgear WNR1000's (V2  and V3) do now support IPV6 with a firmware update.  I'm thinking of going that route myself (sold my Cisco for a rather nice profit!) and plugging in a ethernet ADSL2 modem.  Only problem now is trying to find a WNR1000 that's V2 or 3, gah.

[#15]

Quote from: steveayre

Quote from: dave The Thomson 585v8s we're shipping now are IPv6 capable with a firmware flash. Do you know whether the TG585 v7 can also support IPv6 with a firmware update?

Nope, just the v8s unfortunately.