Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are. I was part of the test rollout of IPv6 when I lived in Richmond, VA last year. It worked flawlessly so I'd assume they should be set for a greater rollout sooner rather than later.
When was that? It's been "coming soon" on Verizon's own FAQ[1] for almost half a decade now. I'm in one of the major MSAs along the eastern megalopolis, and there's no IPv6 here. [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20171220092540/https://www.veriz...
IPv6 Fundamentals: A Straightforward Approach to Understanding IPv6, 2nd Edition
61–64 of 64 posts
Re: IPv6 Fundamentals: A Straightforward Approach to Understanding IPv6, 2nd Edition
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a silly bikeshed, but I wish they'd gone for hyphens as separators rather than colons. There's something about [abcd-ef12-3456-7890-abcd-ef12-3456-7890] that's nicer to read than [abcd:ef12:3456:7890:abcd:ef12:3456:7890]
It's probably not like that because then you could have something be both a valid hostname and a valid ip address
• Even with the brackets, it always takes the same or fewer keypresses (no need to press shift).
• It's easier to tell when the address starts and ends. This is helpful when you get into odd addresses like "xxxx::xxxx.192.168.123.234", or "::1", or "::". The versions [xxxx--xxxx.192.168.123.234], [--1], and [--] look nicer and more obvious, at least to me.
But of course this is all silly to go over now, decades after the decision. We'll save these changes for IPv8! :-P
Re: IPv6 Fundamentals: A Straightforward Approach to Understanding IPv6, 2nd Edition
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Before I start I must say, I built IPv6 only datacenters and enterprise networks. I am saying from experience. > Can’t just simply put one IPv6 router/firewall behind another. Not all IPv6 routers support DHCP-PD, and even if they did, you could have 2-3-4 levels of routers/firewalls at a business. You cannot do this with IPv4 either. Routing has to work. It works for both IPv4 and In But if you are saying, you add 2…
Datacenter networks are an entirely different beast to SME and SOHO business networks. You don’t get the same budget for nice equipment, nor dedicated IT persons to run it, nor any remotely technical people on the ISP side to help you. SME and SOHO are very price conscious too. Think low margin retail and petroleum and fastfood. > You cannot do this with IPv4 either. Routing has to work. It works for both IPv4 and In…
SOHO networks just use what providers gives them. I am not sure, why are you jumping from large “oil-and-gas corps” to SOHO, though.
For SOHO providers will be building IPv6-only networks with NAT64 to access the legacy IP. I am seeing it happening: I saw multiple situations like this with guest wifi already. Obviously, this trend is going to continue.
> Yes, you literally can stack a dozen commercial IPv4 firewall/routers behind each others networks and a PC plugged into the very last one will have no problems access Google on the browser. Because of NAT, which all IPv4 capable personal/SOHO/SME routers do by default.
… and then Google blocks it all because the amount of requests from a single IP exceeds their expectations. I have seen half of Belarus blocked by Google because their NAT pools were overprovisioned. When I was at Cisco, a customer asked us to change the NAT behaviour so, that it uses pool not “first, all ports from the first IP in the pool, then all ports from the second IP, etc” to “first port from the first IP, then the first port from the second IP, etc”. The reason was, their starting IPs in the pool were always oversubscribed and blocked. The alternative behaviour broke FTP, SIP even with application-level fixups because the protocols don’t expect signalling and data to use different IPs.
Not to mention, SOHO routers just don’t have enough capacity to maintain translation cache so connections will be randomly dropped.
> Too slow for some common use cases in industries I deal with.
Have you tried it? Renumbering event means sending two RA packets: one to expire an old prefix, another to announce a new one. While technically it’s slower than changing routers on the NAT gateway, I wonder what are your requirements.
It doesn’t allow load balancing, which is true. Work is being done in IETF to support for client-based load balancing, see RFC7157, etc. In my experience, load balancing is rarely happening in such scenarios because it will result an overloaded link when either on two goes down. Anyway, I don’t argue, it is something that could be improved.
Re: IPv6 Fundamentals: A Straightforward Approach to Understanding IPv6, 2nd Edition
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not all IPv6 routers support DHCP-PD I my experience, they all did. I'm not even sure how you could possibly deploy IPv6 without it, manually handing out prefixes? > you could have 2-3-4 levels of routers/firewalls at a business. It seems just a bad design, but I still don't see how IPv6 would not allow it. > Why? Not all ISPs give static IPv6 prefixes, not all PCs/servers/devices support DHCP6 for static leases, a…
Sorry I could have stated the DHCP-PD issue more clearly. Comcast doesn’t support it. [1] > I honestly don't understand the difference with IPv4. You can have multiple addresses and do load balancing on the router with both. A PC cannot easily have 2 different IPv4 subnets in the same NIC, which is what IPv6 permits with RA. Even if a PC did have 2 networks, how does the router tell the PC to use fibre for everything…
i know this to be false, but i don't want to dismiss your comment because of poor wording.
so: what do you mean?