16 Years with IPv6
teamarin.net
teamarin.net
tl; dr - Comcast v6 works great on Business-class until you push a static v4 config, then it just stops responding to DHCPv6 and SLAAC requests. Ignorance and aggravation ensued from Comcast support, at all levels I was able to get ahold of. Being a monopoly is awesome.
My comment above gives a bunch more detail if you wanna give it a look.
Outside the Seattle area, upgrades happened much earlier so its a mix of VDSL2 down in Kent and surrounding areas, and ADSL to the north of Seattle proper (they got no upgrade munnies :c). Seattle has seen a ton of Capex over the past few years, and from what Clink employees tell me they are severely cutting back in Seattle this quarter, so as to wire the South end with VDSL2 and other cities with fiber. Portland also has near 100% fiber coverage by the way.
The crux of why Centurylink doesn't have a ton of customers on fiber comes down to a godawful prequal database, that they take offline starting anywhere from 3pm to 7pm and keep offline till well into the next morning. Techs will actually get orders put in for DSL, and when they go out to install it, see fiber on the pole and go "WTF?", but getting the prequal database amendment is near impossible.
Wrt static IPs on Comcast or worse yet Wave, just don't bother. A dynamic DNS entry will work just as well, while avoiding all the crazy stand on head networking antics both cable providers have to do to give you a static IP. Try portscanning the internal netblock your static IP is provisioned to, last time I did I found a (poorly protected) headend on a 10.x.x.x address.
1 - https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/SeattleIT/cabl...
I find the list/number of points very little and most are common knowledge or been in countless of how to roll out ipv6 guides.
The mentioning that if end users have problems accessing your site, you should roll out ipv6 to your internal network, reads a 'bit' strange.
I was discussing this with a coworker today, and we were reflecting on a similar technical rollout that really did take of. The various ascii encodings -> UTF8. This was a big shift at the time and took a lot of time to fix. In fact I know of one large DB that, after a huge amount of outreach with customers, was only finally decommed and replaced with a UTF8 last year.
We decided the big difference was that UTF8 solved a huge problem that effected everyone. Was backward compatible with all basic ascii, and was an easy upgrade in many cases (only a problem if you bastardized stored character sets faking out the system and storing them in a different charset).
IPv6 is nicely backward compatible with IPv4, but in general it is not solving a problem most people have (yet). Most sites work fine with IPv4; IPv6 for many is just work with no significant benefit in general.
That being said, I really want IPv6 to become the only option for a lot of reasons; but there is no stron forcing function.
I don't think that that's actually true. People have massive problems due to NAT and overlapping address ranges and stuff ... but it's just commonly accepted as the way IP works, people don't realize that they could just deploy IPv6 and do away with all those problems.
It would definitely make people's network connectivity simpler and less error prone, but I just don't see it as a huge pressing need.
If NATs didn't exist at all, then this would have been such a huge issue that it would have been needed. For most though, NAT is generally good enough.
I guess for most simple home users, it's currently not a huge pressing issue, true. But anything beyond that and you constantly run into issues. And that includes home users who also have to use some VPN to their workplace ...
But that does not mean that NAT really is good enough, it just means that deployed systems nowadays just take it as a given that NAT exists, and any technology that isn't compatible with NAT simply doesn't exist. Which makes it less of a pressing issue in a way, but that does not mean that it doesn't still cause huge costs even to home users in terms of missed opportunities of a NAT-free world.
Many companies get away with NAT just fine; and that's the entire point. It works well enough that for many it's just not an urgent issue.
Like you said, it would make a lot of technology easier to deploy and build. The orthogonal comment about the Cellphone industry pushing the issue is right on the money. For them this significantly simplies their network management (which has tons of devices moving around). For laptops on wifi this would probably be better as well, but there so much is just solved by the fact that the Web is capable of tracking users across IPs with cookies.
Again I'm not arguing against IPv6; I'm just trying to better understand why it's deployment isn't being done as urgently as that of other things, like UTF8. I think the answer is in the fact that we've built so many workarounds that it stretched IPv4 well beyond its end-of-life.
Well, that is true in a way (I mean, without NAT (or something similar), there obviously would not be any way to keep going, so, yeah, in that sense, NAT has made things somewhat bearable instead of completely unworkable, thus making the migration to v6 less urgent).
But my point is that the reason why people (companies in particular) aren't migrating to a large extent seems to me to not be because it wouldn't be worth it for them, but rather that they lack the understanding to see that it would be. There are lots and lots of admins out there who operate IP networks and essentially have no clue of IP routing. They have grown up in a world of NAT, and just understand "the router" as "the public internet termination point" or whatever you want to call it. They don't even see NAT as a workaround, but as the obvious and natural state of affairs, because, what are you gonna do if you want to connect more than one machine to your internet connection? You need a router! And router is synonymous with NAT gateway, because that's why you need the router ... or something.
If your whole mindset doesn't even allow you to see the possibility of the natural state of the internet (i.e. end-to-end addressability of all participants), you won't ever notice all the workarounds that you are using. And if, say, port forwarding doesn't occur to you as being a workaround, but rather the obvious thing you just need to do to make some internal machine reachable from the outside, then you also never get the idea that IPv6 might be the solution. You just assume that IPv6 obviously also has to have port forwarding, because you still want to make internal machines reachable from the outside, don't you?
To generalize, I think IPv6 represents more freedom for end-users in the form of better p2p services, but I think it also represents a loss in profit for some large companies. These companies play a roll in the IPv6 rollout, so maybe it's not surprising that the rollout has been slower than expected.
Keep in mind that would you describe would require both computers to be on at the same time, and that often doesn't happen either.
Dropbox would be here to stay even in an IPv6 world.
http://www.networkworld.com/article/3191503/internet/mit-sel...
https://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-18-145-0-0-1.html
According to the IPv4 Market Group, prices per address have trended around $8 - $12 (prices vary by block size):
http://ipv4marketgroup.com/ipv4-pricing-in-a-post-arin-runou...
If that's the case, then it may make sense to lock the instance price down, and start charging for in-use v4 IPs, not just unused allocated ones.
Let's say the next block of 1 Million IPs that AWS wants to buy from say, GE fails to go through, and AWS is looking at a pool of 500K IPs starting to shrink at the rate of 30k per day. The only way to ensure they don't run out would be to separate the price out and jack up the price considerably so they don't run out.
What I'm saying is that at some point, WHEN the number of IPs that people want outpaces the number AWS (or Google or other cloud provider) can obtain from other companies, they will be forced to change something.
What would be interesting would be to see AWS etc, to try to get their customers to migrate off IPv4 for administrative and back-office services since there really isn't a strong reason to have VPNs and SSH or RDP sessions backed by a v4 address.
I have Webpass (now owned by Google Fiber) at home and Sonic.net at work.
It's possible your provider may do the same.
I see that my devices get IPV6 and IPV4 addresses. Beyond that I don't know "if it works." From outside my firewall (pfSense) I wouldn't know how to access resources within (which are walled off in the first place.)
By accessing the IP address they are assigned?
http://netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/ (goes far beyond IPv6 testing)
If you want to see if things on your network are reachable from outside, you'll need something else with IPv6 connectivity. In my own case, a T-Mobile handset with LTE works nicely; if I open up a port to an IPv6 host on my LAN, I can reach it from the phone.
My home IPv6 connection is via a /60 provided by Comcast, but I'm currently only using a single /64 out of that pool.
After all the words Inter Net mean this technology can work over and between any network, be it Ethernet, Wi-Fi, Token Ring or whatever. And of course it can work over IP of another version.
Also used SixXS but the aiccu+AYIYA/6in4 requirement isn't ideal when you have some network gear that supports 6to4 tunnelling natively.
Lets say I have an IPv6 on/availableTo a server - how do I go about handing out those IPs to my local clients and all the routing/setup inbetween