×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

214 comments

NT (2)

wasabii (693236) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075120)

It's actually the only solution.

Re:NT (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076234)

Your assuming a false dichotomy between choosing dual stack IPv6 or choosing nothing at all.

Embedding IPv4 within the IPv6 address space and allowing for a smooth transition was another option. As a society, we have chosen not to take that option. We have chosen uncertainty, confusion, and NAT instead.

Re:NT (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076626)

IPv4 is embedded in the IPv6 address space. What would you have done differently and how would that have made the transition smoother?

(spits) (-1, Redundant)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075154)

Comcast execs are sons of silly persons. Thpppppt! Thppt! Thppt!

I don't wanna get your $80/month bills no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in thy general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries! Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time-a! Stupid Comcast-men.

why? (0)

novar21 (1694492) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075160)

Sorry, at a loss. comcast should just keep ipv4 internal and proxy ipv6 externally. Don't understand the reason to complicate its implementation any more. Other than let us geeks suffer the consequences.

Re:why? (2)

sirambrose (919153) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075334)

They probably want customers to use native ipv6 so they can eventually stop supporting native ipv4. I believe they are planning to let people run ipv6 exclusively and proxy outbound ipv4 connections which seems like a better long term strategy. I don't think that giving customers a new modem and router will complicate the rollout too much.

Re:cost? (1)

novar21 (1694492) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075382)

Hardware always costs. Should they only role out new customers, or replacements for failed equipment? Seems logical to me, but then again.. the sooner the better I suppose.

Re:cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35076002)

Or they've been giving people IPv6 capable routers for years now (the last time I had Comcast was 2008 and that was IPv6 capable) and they're now ready to actually turn it on.

Re:cost? (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076340)

They gave me a SMC8014 for a business drop, and nothing in the manual suggests ipv6 capabilities. That was only 2 years ago.

Re:why? (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075954)

They need to for DOCSIS 3 (at least on the modem side) anyways. DOCSIS 3 supports IPv6, so after that roll out is over with the main problem is the router from the customer end.

Re:why? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075344)

Uhh, the entire reason they're moving to IPv6 is because IPv4 internally no longer works for them. They've exhausted 10.0.0.0 (it's only 16M IPs, after all), so moving to v6 is the only way they can keep their network manageable, without going to crazy, multi-layered NAT solutions.

Re:why? (1)

headhot (137860) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076406)

wrong, they have been using public address space for the mgt of cable modems. Recently they have been moving the mgt to IPv6 too.

Re:why? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075354)

Why in the world would they want to proxy v6?

I can see where they might want to tunnel v6 over v4 as a transition measure (and they are. I'm using their 6rd tunnel endpoint now).

Re:why? (2)

wasabii (693236) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075378)

I should also mention that running IPv4 over IPv6 is kind of weird, and presents more problems than a proper dual stack.

Re:why? (1)

mellon (7048) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076320)

Actually, NAT64 (where you make IPv4 servers out on the network look like IPv6 machines to devices on your network) works quite well, and isn't weird at all. It's arguably a better solution that dual stack.

Comcast really? (2)

magsol (1406749) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075162)

To be honest, they're the last ISP I'd have expected to start IPv6 implementation.

Re:Comcast really? (5, Informative)

rritterson (588983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075598)

I have been a comcast customer for 8 straight years now (give or take a few months)

Had the announcement broken 3 years ago, I would have agreed with you, but Comcast is on a long, upward trend in technical competitiveness.

They were the first major ISP to go DNSSEC, I believe, and have done DOCSIS 3.0 rollouts in most of their markets (we get cheap 20/4 service here, with a 50 down option available. Some parts of the service area have 100mbps down.) They also rolled out a bunch of 6to4 servers recently. While 6to4 is not a great technology, it is useful to have ISP servers, since my IPv6 traffic (auto tunneled via an Airport Extreme) goes through my local NOC and not first to wisconsin and then back to silicon valley as was the case before.

They still lag when it comes to technical support via phone, as they assume all of their customers are techno-illiterate, but I have to give them a lot of credit for being on the leading edge when it comes to their network and network technologies.

Re:Comcast really? (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076072)

They still lag when it comes to technical support via phone, as they assume all of their customers are techno-illiterate

As an ex-employee of Time Warner in Austin TX, (working TSR dept as of 2006) that's because THEY ARE! That's not an insult, it's simply the facts. And this is in Austin, TX mind you. The Business Class subscribers that call in are much more savvy however. Generally they are the IT guys calling in to get routers and whatnot setup.

Think about the automotive industry where a customer brings their car into the shop? How many automotive-illiterate people do you think they run into? Exactly!

Re:Comcast really? (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076566)

What is somewhat odd is that they continue to assume that you're technically illiterate even when you've proved you're not... I had a Comcast tech (who was at least level 2 if not level 3 support) repeatedly ask me what the computer's timed-out message was... even when it was the same message over and over again... and after we had had a fairly extensive discussion about how I used DD-WRT generally but had plugged the computer directly into the cable modem to rule that out as a possible source of the failure before I had called.

Re:Comcast really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35076714)

Which is fine, but when you have already done most of the troubleshooting and know 90% of what the problem ISN'T, and you get someone in support who is *less* technical than you, who just wants to follow a script and say *ok, now is the modem plugged in?*, it's an annoying waste of everyone's time. They should segment the people who call in into Clueless vs. Technical.

Re:Comcast really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35076750)

My digital cable and my cable modem were both out one day. I also noticed some tire tracks in my yard near the pole that were not there an hour before when my stuff was working fine. I had to call one number to report my digital cable was out and another to report my internet was out. Neither support rep had any information about work in my area and denied anyone was working in the area earlier in the day. Each call resulted in a tech scheduled to come to my house to "look at" my cable modem and another tech to "look at" my hd/dvr. The digital cable guy arrived first a few days later and fixed everything without even coming in the house. He said someone working on the pole a few days earlier had installed a "filter" on the line coming into my house and it was blocking everything but regular cable. He had no idea why. He also swapped out all of my splitters and charged me $30 for the visit after he replaced all of my splitters. I had four of them and they were old and corroded but that was not the real problem.

Re:Comcast really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35076210)

I have been a Comcast Business customer for several months now, and I have to say the difference between their consumer customer support and their business class customer support is the difference between night and day. For one thing, I am never on hold for more than a minute or two, and any technical question or anything I have, they get me to the right people the first time.

I don't pay much more for the business class, I did have to sign a contract, and I have a static IPv4 address. Can't beat it where I live.

Re:Comcast really? (2)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075664)

They seem like two different operations. The behind the scenes people seem to be good, but their phone support people seem to be entirely clueless and trained to lie as a matter of policy. If they really want to be more profitable, they should try actually performing diagnostics before dispatching someone for inside support when the problem usually turns out to be on the lines outside (which requires a second dispatch to solve, the inside techs aren't equipped for it).

Re:Comcast really? (5, Insightful)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075810)

Comcast has a slightly unusual situation. They are so massive that their "control plane" network has exhausted 10.0.0.0/8. That means afaict they are now using public IPs not just for customers but for internal use as well. The space that most ISPs would use to put their customers on ISP level NAT is ALREADY TAKEN for their "control plane" network.

http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog37/presentations/alain-durand.pdf [nanog.org]

Given that they have little choice but to go IPv6 for thier internal networks (or "federate" the network but that is a large management headache) before IPV4 addresses run out it is not that surprising that they are proposing to offer it to customers as well.

about time :) (1)

youn (1516637) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075176)

may a wave of sanity run through all providers quickly this year... ipv6 is only over a decade old

Re:about time :) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35076130)

Let me ask YOU a question: Can I cum on your face? Seriously, can I blow my load all over your smiling virgin head?

and it begins (1)

thehodapp (1931332) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075190)

the exodus has begun..Don't hold your breath though. It's going to take a long time for these bozo ISPs to get IPv6 implemented. hopefully not 40 years long.....

They don't want to NAT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075204)

Despite the fact that everyone is pointing at NAT as a solution for ISPs, I really don't think they want to NAT at all. NAT takes processing power and would cost them money in extra infrastructure. No matter how evil you think they are, I believe they'd much rather move to IPv6 than NAT with IPv4.

Re:They don't want to NAT (2)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075914)

Afaict the original idea with ipv6 was to go from public v4-->ubuiquitous dual stack with public v4-->phaseout of public v4.

However there is a chicken and egg situation, ISPs won't want to put users on v6 only until the majority of websites are available on v6 and a substatial proportion of website owners won't see any point in offering v6 while all their clients can still access v4. Especially as a lot of people who do have v6 have it via tunnels that add latency and reduce reliability. The result is a smooth and speedy transition of the internet to dual stack is unlikely.

So in a world of scarce IPs the ISPs will have little option but to give some customers natted v4. They may or may not give those customers v6 as well.

Where are the routers for IPV6? does comcast mac l (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075214)

Where are the routers for IPV6? does comcast still mac address lock there modems to one mac? or under IPv6 is there network now setup that you just need a switch and only a router if you need wifi?

Re:Where are the routers for IPV6? does comcast ma (1)

borcharc (56372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075444)

how long ago did you use comcast? this restriction went away longer ago then i can remember. Plug new computer into cable modem and reboot, your done.

Apple base stations, some D-Links, some Linksys (2)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075460)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6to4#Consumer_routers_with_6to4_support [wikipedia.org]

http://www.comcast6.net/ [comcast6.net]

Apple's base stations are certified IPv6 ready, which means not only do they work with IPv6, but they have it on by default. The others might require you turn it on. Instructions on how to set up some of them are on Comcast's site.

I've had Comcast internet for two years, they haven't MAC-locked their service in the time I've had them. If you want more than one device at your house to work, you need a NAT/PAT gateway whether you use WiFi or not, as you only get a single IP address from Comcast.

Re:Where are the routers for IPV6? does comcast ma (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075568)

The article mentions that they're giving each user a /64 block of addresses. I doubt that they're assigning 18 quintillion addresses to a single router. Also, Comcast released a modified version of OpenWRT with IPv6 support.

Each user gets 18 quintillion addresses? (1)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075216)

Each user has been delegated a /64 block of approximately 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 (18 quintillion) unique IPv6 addresses.

That seems a little silly. I thought end users were going to be assigned /48s with IPv6?

Re:Each user gets 18 quintillion addresses? (1)

goffrie (1900258) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075250)

A /48 is larger than a /64 (just like a /8 is larger than a /24 in IPv4).

Re:Each user gets 18 quintillion addresses? (1)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075276)

You're right, my bad. I was thinking of something else. /48s were for site assignments from ARIN.

https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv6_initial_assign.html [arin.net]

Still a /64 seems absurdly large for one end user.

Re:Each user gets 18 quintillion addresses? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075432)

> Still a /64 seems absurdly large for one end user.

After all, there are only 18 quintillion /64s. Wouldn't want to waste any.

Re:Each user gets 18 quintillion addresses? (2)

Sancho (17056) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075786)

MAC addresses are 64-bit. By handing out a /64 prefix to the user, a bit of convenience can be achieved wherein the MAC address of the adapter is automatically used as the last 64-bits of the user's IPv6 address.

Re:Each user gets 18 quintillion addresses? (2)

Sancho (17056) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075808)

I had a bit of a brain fart there. MAC addresses are obviously 48-bit. Nonetheless, the same magic can happen with 64-bit prefixes, though you could obviously get better utilization with a larger prefix.

Re:Each user gets 18 quintillion addresses? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35076182)

The interface identifier part (lower part of /64) can be anything, but you can use a MAC by inserting FEFF into the middle of it, like so:

(Your network prefix):4:8:15:FE:FF:16:23:42

This is known as EUI-64 MAC and is not required by the protocol - under Stateless Address Autoconfig, hosts pick their own address, and under DHCPv6 they're assigned sequentially. Using the EUI-64 is a lazy convention which we really shouldn't do anyway (it's basically putting hardware fingerprints on your packets).

Re:Each user gets 18 quintillion addresses? (2)

rabbit994 (686936) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075826)

/64 is RFC recommended because IPv6 Autoconfiguration uses your NIC MAC address to generate IPv6 address for itself. The length of /64 is same as MAC address. That's why they are doing it.

IPv6 was designed to have large amount of waste built in. When you have 3.4x10^38, you can afford to be a little wasteful.

Re:Each user gets 18 quintillion addresses? (1)

bk2204 (310841) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075882)

Since router advertisements use unique addresses based on a 64-bit prefix and an expanded 64-bit version of the normal 48-bit Ethernet/WiFi MAC address, a /64 is generally the right size. Unless you're using something like DHCPv6, router advertisements are the normal way to get addresses on a local network.

Re:Each user gets 18 quintillion addresses? (2)

kimvette (919543) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075298)

Well, folks have thought better of this and decided that they had to plan for the day where we develop nanotech medicine, and have an IP address available for each cell-nanotech pair for an entire family, plus enough overhead to give the same for each pet.

Re:Each user gets 18 quintillion addresses? (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075304)

The smallest subnet normally designated in IPv6 is a /64. When you use automatic addressing based on MAC addresses, then you need a 64-bit host address. Assigning each household (at least) a /64 allows everything to work automatically.

Re:Each user gets 18 quintillion addresses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075674)

You have no *clue* how it works, yet, in spite of your ignorance, you have "opinions". Seriously, read how it works before writing stupid things.

Networks are not designed using "you need X devices connected so you get X IPs". They are designed around routing tables which have finite sizes. The smaller the routing table, the faster the router works and the more it can move through. It is also easier to manage.

IPv6 is designed with the network in mind, not some hack for a test network (like IPv4). That means you are getting /64 so,

    1. your can allow privacy on your network (eg. different IP address for each request, so sites can't track *you* reliably, etc.)
    2. no need to run DHCP - each computer can make a unique address automatically
    3. no more NAT necessity - SIP, Skype, BT, IRC, server - all work as they are suppose to work.

ISPs will get /32 networks or larger space. This about equivalent of ONE IPv4 address, in address-space. Then they will route this based on their network topology, and not simply "OMG, we are almost out of IPv4! REMAP REMAP!". Business customers will be able to get /56 or /48 network assignments. /64 is per LAN (per network). There is no smaller networks than this. PPP is /127, but that's not really a network.

Re:Each user gets 18 quintillion addresses? (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076208)

1. your can allow privacy on your network (eg. different IP address for each request, so sites can't track *you* reliably, etc.)

That's just silly. At the IP layer, they lose no granularity over today (they can tell basically what house it came from from the leading 64 bits and either interpret the last bits as finer grained data or discard as noise. All this is moot as sites track *you* reliably via use of higher-layer features like authenticated sessions and/or HTTP cookies that persist regardless of originating IP.

2. no need to run DHCP - each computer can make a unique address automatically

True, but of little practical consequence for most of the world. Most of the world lived in the default private network their linksys box gave them and the DHCP was effectively equally magic as route advertising with auto-config in v6. Note I did say most of the world, some cases required end-user tweaking that won't know, but a small minority.

3. no more NAT necessity - SIP, Skype, BT, IRC, server - all work as they are suppose to work.

Nope, that ship has sailed. Sure, NAT won't be there to mess things up but firewalls will continue to break P2P by default and things like Skype and BT will continue to need 'superpeers' that will be somewhat rare still (though more prevalent than IPv4, but only slightly). If the late 90s hadn't seen so many DoS attacks using immature IP stacks and insecure services left wide open by overly trusting OS vendors (MS largely, but other vendors not blameless), maybe firewall wouldn't be considered a must-have. Now even with solid IP stacks and generally more secure defaults, poor security practices and paranoia will not magically make firewalls disappear. One of my first thoughts was that broken P2P models would be resolved as NAT goes away, but the firewalls will generally stay. I have the power to increase my reach, so it isn't bad for me, but for automagic, zero-config routers, yeah those will still be locking people up just as if they were behind a NAT gateway.

Re:Each user gets 18 quintillion addresses? (1)

Chuck_McDevitt (665265) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075680)

Home users don't need a /48 (which is 1024x bigger than a /64). It would be nice if they did allow for subnets , and gave home users at least a /62 (room for 4 subnets). But very few home users would use such a feature.

A /64 allows for more devices connected to your home subnet than all the network interfaces ever built, or will be built in our lifetimes. There isn't any worry about it being "too small".

Re:Each user gets 18 quintillion addresses? (1)

Nigel Stepp (446) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075824)

A /48 is actually 65536 times bigger than a /64 (2^(64-48)), but it's still reasonable to give home users that much. Only 4 subnets is extraordinarily restrictive. Think many (actually probably not that many) years down the line when you have subnets per room and such. I'd want my kitchen to be on a different subnet than my garage, for instance.

Re:Each user gets 18 quintillion addresses? (1)

Nigel Stepp (446) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075722)

Assigning a /48 for end users is still the recommended thing to do. Some ultra-conservative types are planning on /56 instead. I expect ISPs assigning /64s to go out of business (maybe that's hope).

Re:Each user gets 18 quintillion addresses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35076116)

WTF are you drinking?? /48 are for business customers with multiple networks, like a hospital. Or are you saying that /64 is too small for you?? There is NO REASON for regular customers to have /64 and there is NO REASON for a typical small businesses to get anything larger than /56.

Re:Each user gets 18 quintillion addresses? (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076142)

It is really silly. They should have at least given each user 4,722,366,482,869,645,213,696 addresses, 18 quintillion is being way too stingy.

Only half joking, I kind of wanted at least some headroom to segment my home network if I chose. Even a /62 would have been nice.

Re:Each user gets 18 quintillion addresses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35076274)

In IPv6 you do not allocate "addresses" to users or to networks. Instead you allocate a network prefix which has a "subnetting capacity". The subnetting capacity is based on how many /64 blocks are contained in the prefix. One subnet is /64. Within that /64, some devices will be using randomness algorithms to generate unique addresses for autoconfiguration. These autoconfig algorithms rely on having a huge available number space so that the likelihood of two devices choosing the same address is very very very low.

IPv6 addresses are not the same kind of thing as IPv4 addresses. Many addresses are allocated but not used to guarantee that random address choosing can work. Other addresses are used to address interfaces on a device. In IPv6 there is not such thing as "my computer's address" because your computer will have at minimum, two IPv6 addresses per interface, if not more. In a typical home network some devices like printers will use RFC 4193 ULA addresses which means that Internet connected devices will have 3 IPv6 addresses per interface. IPv6 is more like an Internet version of Appletalk, than an upgrade for IPv4. Appletalk's effortless autoconfiguration was the model for IPv6's design.

Famous Last Words (5, Funny)

mccrew (62494) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075248)

Each user has been delegated a /64 block of approximately 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 (18 quintillion) unique IPv6 addresses.

"18 quintillion unique IPv6 addresses should be enough for anybody." -me

Re:Famous Last Words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35075414)

Everyone gets 18quintillion addresses.... sounds like a plan to run the world out of IP's and start designing IPv7 ASAP!

Re:Famous Last Words (1)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075450)

Everyone gets 18quintillion addresses.... sounds like a plan to run the world out of IP's and start designing IPv7 ASAP!

Not really, with 18 quintillion allocations of that size, assuming 7 billion people, everyone can have 2.5 billion addresses.

That should last for a while.

Re:Famous Last Words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35076080)

I've barely even managed to use my 5 (well, technically 8, but with multicast and the routers...).
I can't imagine what I'd do with even one quadrillion. Guess I'd better buy a bigger house and start collecting more machines!

Re:Famous Last Words (1)

funaho (42567) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075736)

Everyone gets 18quintillion addresses.... sounds like a plan to run the world out of IP's and start designing IPv7 ASAP!

Yes because we all saw how well "protocol version 7' worked out in Serial Experiments Lain :)

Re:Famous Last Words (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075982)

Unfortunately it isn't, afaict the only widely supported autoconfiguration system for IPv6 is stateless autoconfiguration and that by design depends on a /64 subnet mask.

This makes life dificult if you want to run more than one subnet but your ISP will only give you a /64. ARP proxying may be a soloution but is likely to be quite painful to set up. Afaict the linux kernel guys are refusing to implement v6 nat on principle which rules out that option for those of us who use linux boxes for routing.

In related news... (0)

Tiger4 (840741) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075256)

Comcast reports that hundreds of users have unexpectedly lost service, with thousands more dropping connections frequently and reporting massive slowdowns. Time until restoration of service is not being predicted at this time.

Good (2)

wasabii (693236) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075312)

The point of this is to uncover any issues with customer equipment that prevents it. Any modern Vista or Windows 7 box by default has IPv6 enabled, and it works just fine. I know. I use it on all of my company's machines. Any devices that isn't aware of IPv6 will just ignore it. I'm expecting some poor IPv6 translation technologies on cheap routers that break with real IPv6 presence. That's kind of the only downside I can imagine.

Customers behind an existing IPv4-only NAT device won't even be touched.

Re:Good (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076134)

Some software, namely DirectPlay-powered games, semi-implement IPv6; enough to detect the IP and know it exists, but not enough to actually use it properly. More often than not, that means you'll have the game trying to connect through the IPv6 stack despite being unable to do so instead of just sticking to IPv4 where available and not doing anything where not.

I'm sure this isn't an isolated case. Chances are IPv6 is sufficiently similar to IPv4 for some sloppier implementations to understand half of it, enough to screw up instead of ignoring.

They also support 6RD and 6to4 (1)

Chuck_McDevitt (665265) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075586)

Comcast also supports 6RD and 6to4 servers, so even if you don't have dual-stack, you can get on the IPv6 bandwagon.

6to4 should "just work", but 6to4 itself has some known issues with some kinds of routing (the IPv6 prefix doesn't have a routable prefix, so not everyone you can see can see you).

Their 6RD servers are few and far between, and that gives bad performance, but it work correctly. You just need to configure your connection properly for 6RD to their 6RD border router.

Windows or Mac OSX directly connected to the internet should work fine. You shouldn't even need to configure anything.

If you have a home router, it probably doesn't support IPv6, but you might be able to use DD-WRT (www.dd-wrt.org) or other replacement firmware that does. I do this, and it works fine

Neither are as nice as native dual-stack, but Comcast has upgraded their equipment for it in only in a few cities,and it also requires your cable modem to be DOCSYS 3.0.

Overall, I have found right now that using HE's tunnelbroker is better for performance than Comcast's 6RD or 6to4.

Re:They also support 6RD and 6to4 (1)

Orestesx (629343) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076070)

Just wanted to add that the 6RD instructions on the DDWRT wiki [dd-wrt.com] also worked for me on Comcast. Thanks for the tip about native dual stack requiring DOCSYS 3.0.

Re:They also support 6RD and 6to4 (1)

sinclair44 (728189) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076670)

That page notes that you need a recent enough build of DD-WRT. My router is running v24-preSP2 (build 13064) which is the newest on the dd-wrt.com frontpage. Where do I get a newer build?

Re:They also support 6RD and 6to4 (1)

wasabii (693236) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076252)

The 6to4 prefix is routable, isn't it? I can connect to any IPv6 native stuff I've tried with it. Thought the real problem was if your packets got grabbed by something that advertised a route for it, but didn't do it properly.

Re:They also support 6RD and 6to4 (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076448)

If you have a home router, it probably doesn't support IPv6, but you might be able to use DD-WRT (www.dd-wrt.org) or other replacement firmware that does. I do this, and it works fine

FYI the Apple Airport Extreme and Express have supported IPv6 for quite a while now. Basically if your Airport router is square, it can handle IPv6. The older ones shaped like a Hershey's kiss do not.

I've got both types of Extreme in use at home right now - the older single band square Extreme providing 5GHz 802.11n, and the "kiss" router for some older devices that can only handle 802.11b/g. All I had to do (as a Comcast customer) was put it in "tunnel" (6to4) mode, and it was able to autoconfigure without any additional work on my part. Once Comcast offers dual stack here, I can change it over to use true IPv6.

DsLite is also being tested by Comcast... Ugh. (1)

Chuck_McDevitt (665265) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075636)

It is looking more and more like Comcast waited too long to do this, and will run out of IPv4 addresss before people can make the transition. Dual-stack still requires you to have an IPv4 address.

So they are also testing DsLite, a system where the home user only gets an IPv6 prefix, and no IPv4 address. This connects to a NAT64 router that allows you to get at IPv4 sites, by translating your IPv6 address into an IPv4 address.

NAT64 is an ugly solution, but ARIN will run out of IPv4 blocks to give Comcast and other ISPs by the end of the year.

cool i guess (1)

luther349 (645380) | more than 3 years ago | (#35075730)

ii just wonder what there gonna do with all there customers with old eq. they never change the hardware they give you unless it brakes or you unsubscribe from them. meaning im shure they have tons on custmers with old modems that have no support for ipv6. my windstream roughter/modem is flashable so i assume when they switch they will just enable my hardware via soft-where.

Re:cool i guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35076100)

Apparently, your spell-check is broken, too.

Re:cool i guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35076276)

Spill chicken want Fick's bud thin kin.

Re:cool i guess (1)

mellon (7048) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076354)

It's pretty unlikely that they will do that. The software maintenance hassles of what you're describing are far worse than getting people to upgrade their hardware. This will generate a lot of trash, unfortunately.

good at counting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35076150)

No one wanted to talk about IPv5 because it was missing a head and was left to fend for itself under the back porch to eat grubs through it's neck stump. Poor old stumpy IPv5.

Whaaat? (1)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076282)

Comcast doing something that's useful and helpful to the internet at large?

Oh wait, now I've got it. A hellmouth must have opened over the US, and hell's frozen over.

IPv6 Inertia (1)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076376)

I always thought it was a matter of economics not technology that ISPs are generally unwilling to go to IPv6. I think ISPs like IPv4 because they can charge extra for static addresses. Since IPv6 has virtually limitless addresses this kind of removes an extra profit generator. Now it would seem end users can have large address blocks and soon it might be economically feasible for uber geeks like myself to do BGP routing!

This is ridiculous (2, Interesting)

ugen (93902) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076642)

"Each user has been delegated a /64 block of approximately 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 (18 quintillion) unique IPv6 addresses. "

So, effectively, they just shortened an IPv6 address to 64 bit - and allocation haven't even started yet in earnest.
This is the problem with people. Even technical people (and moreover - everyone else) will waste any resource (including artificial resource) until there is scarcity regulated by monetary means. If that's the way IPv6 will be assigned - /64 to an individual user, /32 to a corporation, /12 to interplanetary internet or whatever other cooky idea there is - these addresses will run out in a jiffy. And then we'll be trading in these and IPv4 just the same.

Re:This is ridiculous (5, Informative)

Nigel Stepp (446) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076780)

Give rfc3177 [ietf.org] a read, especially section 4. That RFC is obsolete now, but the math hasn't changed.

These numbers are ridiculously huge, and it is intended in the design that subnets would normally be sized at /64. Thinking of that as 18 quintillion addresses is thinking like IPv4. IPv6 is different, and you think in terms of subnets. There are also (since an address is 128 bits) 18 quintillion /64 networks. If we give each person on the planet 65536 /64s (that's a /48) then we have enough for 5000 times the current world population in the current pool of addresses, which is 1/8th the full IPv6 address space. If you use the whole space, then it's 40,200 times the world population.

Slightly unrelated (1)

ugen (93902) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076676)

Is there software that can NAT IPv6? Clearly anything's possible in theory - but are there existing solutions.

I'd like all my devices to appear as a single IP address to the outside world, as they do now - to maintain uncertainty.
My Google mojo does not help - any mention of IPv6 in connection with nat that I am finding, is something about ipv4 nat or tunneling.

Ideally, it'd be nice to have that built into dd-wrt

Re:Slightly unrelated (1)

Zan Lynx (87672) | more than 3 years ago | (#35076788)

To maintain uncertainty you want to go from 18 quintillion possibilities to only 65535?

Are you high?

Look at what Windows Vista and 7 as well as other OS's are doing with temporary IPv6 addresses.

You're our company's computer guy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35076690)

Here, you handle all this IP 6 stuff. Can you have it taken care of by Thursday?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...