UK among nations that have done least
Are we surprised ?
Err, not in the least
Err, not in the least
Quote from: MauriceC ... where most ISP's claim no business case as a rational reason?
Well yes, most users - and I really do mean most - don't know what IPv6 is, and don't know why they should want it. Most of my colleagues at work (and I work in an IT services company !) dread it's coming as they are "comfortable" with typing IPv4 addresses to access stuff.
I'm keen to crack on, but also more than a bit "apprehensive" as most of our IP related processes just won't scale. What works (address assignment, monitoring, traffic control & logging, etc) for a /24 network (254 addresses) just won't scale to a /64 with 65534 addresses
Quote ... so why the delay downstream?
A clue in the chorus to this classic
The larger ISPs (who serve the bulk of users) have engaged in a race to the bottom price wise, so they have no money left for maintaining what they have, let alone investing in upgrades. The core equipment may already be IPv6 capable (possibly with the addition of licences), but before that can be turned on and fed down to end users there is a whole other layer that users should not normally get to know about (it's invisible unless it goes wrong) - all that management layer that takes care of everything (creating new users, billing them, configuring their equipment when it connects, etc, etc).
That, in part, will have been behind the IPv6 trial Plusnet did - to get a feel for how end user kit would work and so on. I'm sure that they have people beavering away behind the scenes working on new systems.
Quote from: SimonHobson I'm keen to crack on, but also more than a bit "apprehensive" as most of our IP related processes just won't scale. What works (address assignment, monitoring, traffic control & logging, etc) for a /24 network (254 addresses) just won't scale to a /64 with 65534 addresses
Don't know how to break this to you Simon, but it might be worse than you thought! A /64 has 2^64 addresses in it - that's 18,446,744,073,709,551,616!
It is an interesting point you raise though... It's one thing updating hardware to support IPv6 but there's also the management-related aspects too which need consideration. For example, an Excel spreadsheet may more than suffice for the allocation management of a small IPv4 address range but trying to carry that across to do the same with IPv6 is going to need a rethink.
Edit: Whoa... This thread is 10 months old - sorry about digging that up. Hopefully it's still relevent though.
Quote from: MJN Don't know how to break this to you Simon, but it might be worse than you thought! A /64 has 2^64 addresses in it - that's 18,446,744,073,709,551,616!
I must have been half asleep when I wrote that
indeed there are, real verifiable ones that don't require static holes
seriously though its about a lot more than a firewall, so much trouble for anyone that's not going to be running there own BGP (router or server based), which means there's still a giant sized problem to be figured out before it can be given true implementation.
if they stuck to providing 6 over 4 though that part of the problem is mitigated, but then your not getting any benefit from 6 /
some serious work needed before it can be rolled out as a true connection offering, its not like everyone is a geek who understands or has the money to setup a home gateway server in order to provide isolation for there equipment, and lets face it without isp's giving away routers that cost more than £30 three unlikely to be able to supply anything capable of doing the job either, and the answer so far seems to be "its ok our routing table wont list all the things you want to keep private .....how do they know if I want access to my NAS box when i'm away from home but don't want it accessible to anyone else in the world .....
so many problems but so far no tangible proof of how I can do both be secure but still create an unsolicited login from any computer in the world given the right credentials without needing some login sever over ipv6 ........ yet its possible to do just that currently...so its really not much of a push for the average consumer to want to jump at a headache like that when things work fine right now....
seriously though its about a lot more than a firewall, so much trouble for anyone that's not going to be running there own BGP (router or server based), which means there's still a giant sized problem to be figured out before it can be given true implementation.
if they stuck to providing 6 over 4 though that part of the problem is mitigated, but then your not getting any benefit from 6 /
some serious work needed before it can be rolled out as a true connection offering, its not like everyone is a geek who understands or has the money to setup a home gateway server in order to provide isolation for there equipment, and lets face it without isp's giving away routers that cost more than £30 three unlikely to be able to supply anything capable of doing the job either, and the answer so far seems to be "its ok our routing table wont list all the things you want to keep private .....how do they know if I want access to my NAS box when i'm away from home but don't want it accessible to anyone else in the world .....
so many problems but so far no tangible proof of how I can do both be secure but still create an unsolicited login from any computer in the world given the right credentials without needing some login sever over ipv6 ........ yet its possible to do just that currently...so its really not much of a push for the average consumer to want to jump at a headache like that when things work fine right now....
Quote from: nanotm indeed there are, real verifiable ones that don't require static holes
This makes no sense. If you want to allow traffic through firewall to a certain machine then you will add a rule allowing traffic on a specific port, intended for a specific IP address, to pass through. Consumer level firewalls, such as those found in the sort of routers provided by ISPs, allow this functionality. It is a perfectly normal way for a firewall to operate.
Quote from: nanotm seriously though its about a lot more than a firewall, so much trouble for anyone that's not going to be running there own BGP (router or server based), which means there's still a giant sized problem to be figured out before it can be given true implementation.
Again, makes no sense. Routing for IPv6, from the perspective of a home user, is broadly the same as IPv4. All the home router needs to know is where to send traffic it receives that is intended for the internet, in just the same way as it needs to know that for IPv4. And like IPv4 it will simply be the gateway at the ISP. BGP becomes a consideration once the traffic is at the ISP but it's not a 'giant sized problem'; working out how to route traffic is not something holding up a roll out of IPv6.
Quote from: nanotm if they stuck to providing 6 over 4 though that part of the problem is mitigated, but then your not getting any benefit from 6 /
I don't think you really understand what 6 over 4 is or how it operates.
Quote from: nanotm some serious work needed before it can be rolled out as a true connection offering, its not like everyone is a geek who understands or has the money to setup a home gateway server in order to provide isolation for there equipment, and lets face it without isp's giving away routers that cost more than £30 three unlikely to be able to supply anything capable of doing the job either, and the answer so far seems to be "its ok our routing table wont list all the things you want to keep private .....how do they know if I want access to my NAS box when i'm away from home but don't want it accessible to anyone else in the world .....
The TG582N already supplied by Plus.Net, and several other consumer grade routers already on the market, are perfectly capable of routing IPv6 traffic and providing a SPI firewall that protects your
LAN while allowing you to allow traffic through to specific machines. And routing tables have nothing to do with the ability for you to access a NAS box while away from home while preventing anyone else from doing so. Routing tables simply provide routers with details of which interface to send out traffic they receive. Access to machines on a LAN from a remote location is down to firewall rules.
Quote from: nanotm so many problems but so far no tangible proof of how I can do both be secure but still create an unsolicited login from any computer in the world given the right credentials without needing some login sever over ipv6 ........ yet its possible to do just that currently...so its really not much of a push for the average consumer to want to jump at a headache like that when things work fine right now....
You would do it in exactly the same way as you do currently, with the slight exception that you won't need to use NAT in conjunction with firewall rules. You'll just use firewall rules to allow specific traffic through to the machine you want to allow access to.
Please, go away and do some real reading into the topics you're trying to discuss. It's admirable that you're trying to become involved but your posts continue to display a fundamental lack of knowledge/misunderstanding of the topics involved. And I'm not sure it's something that can be resolved by simply responding to posts you make. You need to look at more comprehensive material than can be placed in a forum posts.