| [Cable] Who is ready for World IPv6 day (June 6, 2012)? Since Rogers/Teksavvy is not yet set up to supply IPv6 addresses, those of us on cable need to use 6to4. I just finished setting up my network for 6to4.
If you have a router running Tomato firmware, you can set up 6to4 like this:
The router then assigns your computer an IPv6 address, like this:
Does it work?
It's not optimal, but it gets the job done until Rogers starts handing out native IPv6 addresses. |
|
|
|
kovy
join:2009-03-26
kudos:8 | why do i need ipv6 again ? |
|
| reply to highwire2007
I have been IPv6-ready for the past three years... |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON
1 edit | reply to kovy
said by kovy:why do i need ipv6 again ?
The stupid comments get old. |
|
Riazg
join:2005-01-01
Scarborough, ON | reply to highwire2007
Thanks! I just enabled it for my network. I am now ready! Time to hit some free IP6 only news groups.
--
Check out the TekSavvy Forums:
»»TekSavvy |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:I have been IPv6-ready for the past three years...
Maybe TSI can finish what they have partially started work on.. |
|
kovy
join:2009-03-26
kudos:8 | reply to brad
said by brad:said by kovy:why do i need ipv6 again ?
The stupid comments get old. How is it old/stupid... why the hell should I do this? |
|
 CabalPremium
join:2007-01-21
Austin, TX | reply to highwire2007
Re: [Cable] Who is ready for World IPv6 day (June 6, 2012)? 6to4 can be pretty unreliable and latency-heavy. You're probably better off with a free tunnel from »tunnelbroker.net/ .
--
If you can't open it, you don't own it. |
|
 nitzguyPremium
join:2002-07-11
Sudbury, ON
 ·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to highwire2007
Still holding onto IPv4, the only standard we truly need...
I've disabled all ipv6 on my Windows Vista laptop, removed the associated registry keys for those stupid teredo tunnelers, disabled it on my router, happy to stick with ipv4...if we'd just use the space that we have efficiently, it'd be just fine...I can just imagine the amount of memory for routing tables in an ipv6 world....massive = expensive....no thanks....#stickinwithipv4 |
|
Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to highwire2007
Routing tables in IPv6 are designed to be smaller and more efficient.
Core routing tables for Ipv4 I've heard are a GB+ I think we're close to something like 450,000 entries.
IPv4 has no space left, we went beyond using it efficiently when we started using NAT(which is a really ugly solution). We're basically out of addresses, and we're needing more and more daily.
The last solution for IPv4 is carrier level NAT.
IPv6 is an elegant solution with many improvements. Not to mention endless addressing. |
|
 GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:20 | reply to highwire2007
I said it in the Bell forum, I'll say it here: "IPv6 day" is a sad day, and I hope IPv6 never catches on. Luckily, it seems like IPv6 will be a barely remembered laughable boondoggle on the dustheap of history. The extra overhead from the bloated header alone makes me cringe.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | said by Guspaz:I said it in the Bell forum, I'll say it here: "IPv6 day" is a sad day, and I hope IPv6 never catches on. Luckily, it seems like IPv6 will be a barely remembered laughable boondoggle on the dustheap of history. The extra overhead from the bloated header alone makes me cringe.
Death to the plague that is NAT (PAT). What an awful technology. I'll be glad to remove v4 from my networks. Good riddance. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to nitzguy
said by nitzguy:I can just imagine the amount of memory for routing tables in an ipv6 world....massive = expensive....no thanks....#stickinwithipv4
lol. except v4 is the problem with massive routing tables.
Good. Stay on the old broken road. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to kovy
said by kovy:How is it old/stupid... why the hell should I do this?
Do you really think you're the first person to ask such a question? |
|
kovy
join:2009-03-26
kudos:8 | said by brad:said by kovy:How is it old/stupid... why the hell should I do this?
Do you really think you're the first person to ask such a question? Going by that logic, you think this is the first topic avec IPV6 day... should I call this topic old/stupid?
So I again, why should I do any of this... Does internet taste better in IPV6 ? Will my Internet not work because I'm still using only IPV4 ?
Shouldn't this be my ISP responsibility and not mine? |
|
TheMGPremium
join:2007-09-04
Canada
kudos:1 | reply to highwire2007
I have not bothered with IPv6 on my own personal network as I would gain nothing by doing so.
Until there is a real day-to-day advantage for me to use IPv6, I'll stick to IPv4. |
|
| reply to highwire2007
I guess some people really don't like change - lots of negativity. |
|
kovy
join:2009-03-26
kudos:8 | said by highwire2007:I guess some people really don't like change - lots of negativity.
Can't expect everyone to agree... right?
Anyway, I'm all for changing to better things... but changing just for changing, meh.
Like I said, how is IPV6 going to improve your Internet experience? |
|
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to highwire2007
When we run out of IPv4 addresses, sites/servers/devices would only be able to get public IPv6 addresses assigned. So at some point a lot of the things you want to access will only be IPv6.
That being said, there are mechanisms to allow you to be IPv4 and access IPv6, but they're not nearly as efficient as native IPv6.
The mechanisms are costly and take more processing power.
With that, IPv6 gives every user a block of public IPv6 address so you can access any device on your network from anywhere on the internet.
It really depends on the application, for example VoIP is a nightmare to operate with NAT, so unless you're using and ALG, its painful. VoIP will benefit from v6.
A lot of the improvements in the protocol are under the hood, removed fields in the header, some new fields (particularly for QoS). A big one is the elimination of the IP header checksum, which means less processing time per packet on a router.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6#Simpl···_routers |
|
