Withdrawl of IPv6 Technical Trial

[#1]

[#2]

Quote from: purleigh

@Kelly - I'm looking to make my home network fully IPv6 capable by Christmas 2013, should I be looking at IPv6 tunnelling over IPv4 to achieve my goal or should I not waste my time and wait for a more permanent solution from PlusNet within that timeframe ?

um this confuses me
my router has always been setup to auto use ipv6 and its about 4 years old .....does your router not provide internal ipv6 stateless DHCP service ?, also does enabling UPNP and disabling port forwarding not allow automatic creation of VPN tunnels as required by programs (I normally see Skype Teredo and EA tunnels active on mine) meaning its automatically allowing direct connection or shovelling things through a 6>4 tunnel .......
the real problem is how are we supposed to get round the problems of non ipv6 compatible device....my solution was to get a subnet that only uses ipv4 provisioned through a secondary router (which has an ipv6 network address but provides DHCP on ipv4 only), this has afforded connectivity for incompatible devices to the internet but (as it happens for me a happy co-incidence) removes the devices from the main LAN (because there no longer visible and are unable to communicate with the main LAN)
for anyone with a billion 7800* router this review does detail how to set it up http://www.thinkbroadband.com/hardware/reviews/71-billion-bipac-7800n-router-review.html

I will admit I don't know much about ipv6 compatibility other than what I read 3 years ago when I was having major problems due to upgrading some equipment and having massive problems with constant router restarts +inability to achieve internet connectivity on the newer stuff (like my main pc)
also unless PlusNet have managed to upgrade all there equipment with ipv6 compliant stuff a live roll out will be unlikely to work without causing major headaches particularly given a lot of routers aren't compliant with ipv6 routing ...

[#3]

I'm sure there's a question in there somewhere but I'm struggling to extract it! 🙂
Can you rephrase what it is you're stuck with or require clarification on?

[#4]

sort of,
what's going to happen to al the people who haven't got ipv6 compatible gear if a live trial kicks off .....
if your devices don't support ipv6 you don't get internet connectivity, if a connected router attempts to provide a network address for an ipv4 only device the server has a hissy fit and everyone looses internet (not just the problem device), so unless that's been addressed then how is state full ipv6 addressing going to work as a service ...
what are they going to do about all the Thompson routers which don't support ipv6 currently ....

[#5]

http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/board,72.0.html ! Specifically http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,110652.0.html
Everybody will still be allocated a IPv4 address somehow.

[#6]

hmm
if that's the case are they going to be using stateless ipv6 ? and no offence but how would the junk Thompsons cope with that, they don't have enough ram to act as a DNS server and dual stack router at the same time ...never mind the processing limitations of them  and the same is true of *most* consumer grade routers (including a lot of the so called small/medium business ones)
it all seems a bit hit and miss

[#7]

@'nanotm' -
[quote=nanotm]for anyone with a billion 7800* router this review does detail how to set it up http://www.thinkbroadband.com/hardware/reviews/71-billion-bipac-7800n-router-review.html
I am also confused, as this last time I checked the latest '1.06h' firmware for the Billion 7800, it appeared to support native IPv6 but NOT tunnelling IPV6 over IPv4.
Are you saying that you got tunnelled IPv6 working using a Billion 7800 as the tunnel end point ? - If so I would be interested to see an example of the configuration.

[#8]

I have 1.06g firmware
I pretty much followed the standard setup which takes a few minutes on the router
maybe its because I set the router to default first though then shoved in the pppoE settings with ipv6 auto enabled, enabled ipv6 autoconfig (stateless) and in the advanced device management  I enabled the upnp on port 2800 with the host name matching the router's dhcp host name
other than that I disabled rip and only used the firewall url filtering iirc if you use dmz/portmapping features it conflicts and fails

[#9]

Surely the CG IPV6 trials revealed that it just isn't workable for many people.
NAT is broken (apparently by design).

[#10]

well wasn't the primary design feature of NAT to through away anything that didn't match the LAN routing info as expected ......can complain when it does that because of a routing mismatch....

[#11]

Quote from: nanotm

well wasn't the primary design feature of NAT to through away anything that didn't match the LAN routing info as expected ......can complain when it does that because of a routing mismatch....

That isn't a sentence.
I assume "through away" means "throw away".
Routers are designed to throw away unroutable traffic - it acts a bit like a kind of basic firewall in that it rejects unsolicited traffic.

[#12]

doh
yeah its a the spelling auto correct sometimes it gets the wrong words for me ....
but it also bins any traffic that it doesn't expect, back when I was running an nt4  setup with 2 networks each having 2 subnets I could share printers from one domain across the other 3 but not from any of the other domains because of nat problems with the routers I was using.... in the end me and the 3 guys who were trying to find a hardware way of isolating various aspects of the work network, binned the whole project and used acces to isolate different layers with everything on a single network, then we upgraded a week before implementation to xp and the whole thing went south again .....
and all because of NAT.....but that was a long time ago and nothing much has changed other than my focus being moved into other areas of employment through to becoming disabled and largely befuddled by meds which have exacerbated my dyslexic tendencies, which bizzarly have transgressed into my typing as I relearnt to use one of my hands and got back to touch typing.... 

[#13]

Quote from: vilefoxdemonofdoom

Surely the CG IPV6 trials revealed that it just isn't workable for many people.

You're mixing up two trials there. There was an IPv6 trial and a CG-NAT (IPv4) trial.

Quote

NAT is broken (apparently by design).

It might be broken in the sense that it doesn't work for all circumstances/protocols but beggars can't be choosers - IPv4 has all but reached end of life and so hanging on to it will necessitate some pain.
Migration to IPv6, whilst also painful in its own ways for a while, is the only long term solution. CG-NAT is just the necessary evil that will likely have to be endured in the meantime.

[#14]

This thread is sounding more and more like this cartoon video - "Fanboy" series - IPv6 and NATs  

[#15]

tbh ipv6 causes a lot of problems because of all the old hardware
BT announced back in 2007 they weren't going to be supporting ipv6 as it would cost to much to upgrade the network equipment, in 2008 they agreed to run limited trials, in 2009 they scrapped plans to roll out the trial across larger groups as it was incompatible with DPI, then they upgraded about 1/3rd of the network infrastructure in time for the Olympics (hence why fibre got rolled out to consumers in so many places all at once this year) now there doing a cg-nat trial across there entire network on an opt out basis (and there forums were covered in people complaining about there "shitty service" in the first few days) and its looking like it largely doesn't work (quell surprise)
until all devices (new ones) ship with ipv6 compatible network adaptors (particularly portable stuff) then ipv6 will continue to be a pain, because its not backwards compatible (which is a coding issue) either way dual stack routers will become more commonplace until the point at which we are all shipped straight into a fully connected internet (again)