Beta
×

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!

Cisco Linksys Routers Still Don't Support IPv6

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the coming-soon dept.

Networking 380

Julie188 writes "It's 2011, IPv4 addresses are officially exhausted, and the world's largest router maker, Cisco, still doesn't support IPv6 in its best-selling line of Linksys wireless routers. This is true even for the new E4200 router released just last month (priced at $180). The company has promised to add IPv6 to the E4200 by the spring. But it has not been specific about if and how it will offer an IPv6 upgrade to the millions of other Linksys routers currently running in homes and small businesses."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

wow (2)

Endymion (12816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155610)

Yet another reason I'm glad I've always recommended against Linksys to friends and family. Shoddy equipment in the past, and no preparation for the future now.

Re:wow (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155788)

Its not like they need new hardware to achieve ipv6.

They need only offer a firmware upgrade.

Re:wow (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156030)

They don't even need to write the upgrade. Ship dd-wrt.

Re:wow (2)

kundziad (1198601) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156178)

Sadly, dd-wrt doesn't support ipv6 out-of-the-box. And this is the only way in which I dare use it on my network equipment. After a careful look around, it looks like Apple ships the best wireless routers (working ipv6, super-easy linking routers via wireless or Ethernet to extend their range)...

Re:wow (1)

stonewallred (1465497) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155946)

Ok. I am a techno-idiot. Is my current linksys router, circa. 203-ish, going to be OK, or is it going to not work?

Re:wow (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35156086)

Ok. I am a techno-idiot. Is my current linksys router, circa. 203-ish, going to be OK, or is it going to not work?

You're not a techno-idiot. You're just a plain old-fashioned idiot who can't fucking read.

The news story says that Linksys routers STILL DON'T SUPPORT IPv6. Did you know, if they STILL DON'T support it that means they NEVER DID support it? That's real hard to figure out, isn't it Sparky?

Maybe you can go back to the elementary school you attended and demand a full refund. They obviously failed to teach you how to understand what you read.

Re:wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35156346)

To paraphrase the troll, it won't work. You'll have to buy another router, preferably not a Cisco or Linksys router for a while.

Re:wow (1)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156002)

Still better than anything netgear makes ;).

Re:wow (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156124)

nobody should use linksys. however, cisco small business products are excellent for friends and family, support everything under the sun, and are easily managed remotely, without being crazy expensive. WRVS4400 is one easy example [cisco.com] and it's $180 and comes with a realistic warranty, supports IPv6, IPS, and all the things that people believe they should get with consumer routers.

meanwhile, buy shit products and you get shit support (aka E4200 for example). It's not a complicated concept. Just like when people buy a consumer grade 2TB hard drive and don't realize the difference between that and an enterprise one.

ipv6 support on Cisco/Linksys routers (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35155612)

dd-wrt FTW

Re:ipv6 support on Cisco/Linksys routers (4, Informative)

rrossman2 (844318) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155642)

I second this. Plus every one I've installed DD-WRT on has ran multitudes more stable than the official firmwares have.

Re:ipv6 support on Cisco/Linksys routers (3, Insightful)

Mr. DOS (1276020) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156082)

Indeed. In fact, there have been a number of instances where I've bought a Linksys router and installed DD-WRT not because I wanted the extra features but because I needed the extra stability. I've maintained for years (albeit with somewhat shrinking confidence) that Linksys' hardware is perfectly fine; it's just the firmware that makes their products suck.

Re:ipv6 support on Cisco/Linksys routers (1)

bikefridaywalter (1032312) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155670)

yeah i was gonna say that should fix it up. speaking of which, was planning on getting a new 802.11n router with a couple gigabit ethernet ports to throw dd-wrt on. any suggestions? i need big enough storage to get vpn going, too.

Re:ipv6 support on Cisco/Linksys routers (1)

BKX (5066) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155862)

Asus RT-N16

Re:ipv6 support on Cisco/Linksys routers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35155926)

Netgear WNDR3700

Re:ipv6 support on Cisco/Linksys routers (1)

rekenner (849871) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156096)

Seconding this. It's my wireless router of choice. It's got a beefy proc, USB storage capability, a/b/g/n, GigE, and can run ddwrt.

Re:ipv6 support on Cisco/Linksys routers (2)

jpedlow (1154099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156050)

ASUS RT-N16

100% stable, takes a beating, super fast

makes wrt54GL's and friends look like ameteur hour.

Re:ipv6 support on Cisco/Linksys routers (1)

morcego (260031) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155812)

Or any of the others... i use openwrt, mostly because I hackit alot. All myimages are custom built.
There are wrt firmwares around for all tastes and all kinds of users.

Re:ipv6 support on Cisco/Linksys routers (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155860)

Has DD-WRT gotten any easier to configure IPv6 via 6to4?

The last version that I played with -- which, admittedly, is now more than a year or two old -- didn't make it easy. You had to explicitly enable "IPv6" and "radvd", and then you had to configure radvd (which most users aren't going to be able to do except by blindly pasting some stuff from the Internet into a text box), and then you had to go through a whole bunch of steps that involved writing (or again blindly copying/pasting) a shellscript that would try and keep the IPv6 side of 6to4 in sync with the IPv4 address when it changed.

It just struck me as offensively poor design in a product that's otherwise pretty neat. I hope they've fixed it, because if aftermarket firmware developers can't even get IPv6 support right, there's no way that the manufacturers are ever going to do it.

The only router I've run across that does IPv6 right (in the sense of automatically setting up native transport if it's available or 6to4 if it isn't) is the Apple Airport Extreme, and it's pretty expensive for a router.

Re:ipv6 support on Cisco/Linksys routers (3, Informative)

(startx) (37027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155872)

Except you need a version with at least 8MB flash for dd-wrt to support ipv6. I just spent weeks trying to get ipv6 to work on my WRT54GL with 4MB flash, but none of the official (or unofficial) builds I could find supported ipv6. I finally just broke down this afternoon and picked up an Asus RT-N16 with 32MB flash and am uploading DD-WRT as we speak.

Re:ipv6 support on Cisco/Linksys routers (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155874)

My DLINK 825 router supports v6 natively (enable tunnels till the ISP bites the bullet). ReFlashing is child's play. The problem is what seems like cumbersome tutorials for *WRT comparable to babying^W mastering a whole new Linux distro . IE: run this command to download ssl, this one to download v6, this one to chain scripts for your non-default firewall, that one to turn on the web GUI we all take for granted in all consumer routers... Please give it to me straight:

Are there binaries with the web interface enabled by default? Which of those is most usable?
Out of Tomato / dd-wrt / Open-WRT, which do you rate best in terms of day-by-day stability / low maintenance? (Please, no modularity and scriptability)

Thanks.
vlueboy.

Re:ipv6 support on Cisco/Linksys routers (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156018)

Buy an apple airport, you are not the type of person that should be using these alternative router firmwares.

Re:ipv6 support on Cisco/Linksys routers (1)

capebretonsux (758684) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156048)

I've been using tomato on mine for about 9 months or so and haven't had any problems/issues whatsoever. Never used the original linksys firmware, so I can't comment on how it compares stability-wise. My suggestion would be to try several firmwares before deciding on which one would best suit your needs. Upgrading my router to tomato was easy, painless and took about 5 minutes, IIRC.

Re:ipv6 support on Cisco/Linksys routers (3, Interesting)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156350)

I just started using Tomato a couple years ago on my WRT54Gv4. Did some benchmarks on speedtest.net before and after.

HyperWRT (based on the original Linksys FW) maxed out around 20mbps.
Tomato managed to max out my 25mbps FiOS line.

So Tomato saved me from a hardware upgrade. Plus the web interface is much prettier and has traffic graphs.

Re:ipv6 support on Cisco/Linksys routers (1)

bikefridaywalter (1032312) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156088)

Out of Tomato / dd-wrt / Open-WRT, which do you rate best in terms of day-by-day stability / low maintenance? (Please, no modularity and scriptability)

i've sort of wondered this as well, but perhaps approach it from a different standpoint. i wouldn't sacrifice versatility/usability for low maintenance. stability is important, but i can mess with stuff if need be. i would like to know i'm not going to brick my router, though. ;)

Re:ipv6 support on Cisco/Linksys routers (2)

Mr. DOS (1276020) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156132)

I would say DD-WRT from the research I've done, although it's the only one I've tried myself. OpenWRT seems to be the least turnkey (but most flexible), with Tomato apparently being decently user-friendly once you get it all set up, but fairly complex to install.

Re:ipv6 support on Cisco/Linksys routers (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155898)

Unfortunately, my router is a Netgear WGT624 v3 and the dd-wrt database indicates that support is "NOT POSSIBLE" even though v4 is supported and v1 and v2 are "works in progress"

Re:ipv6 support on Cisco/Linksys routers (2)

luizd (716122) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156098)

Also, there is OpenWRT. You can build a custom-made firmware with just what you need. You can fit ipv6 support and a web gui in 4MB of flash.

I don't think they care. (0)

HBI (604924) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155622)

The IPv4 exhaustion issue is trumpeted as a reason to provide IPv6 support. But the exhaustion is purely at the NIC level at this point. It hasn't reached a single end user yet. It'll take years for people to start caring about this much. By that time, the current product line will be swapped out for new gear.

Re:I don't think they care. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35155664)

In a few months APNIC will run out of addresses. Thus Asia ISPs won't get any more v4 addresses. Thus they'll be limited in their ability to reach new customers once they saturate their existing pools. Other RIRs will follow.

It's going to affect end-users sooner than you think.

Re:I don't think they care. (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155846)

Not really.

Something like 90% of end users are running behind nat already. (Ok, I pulled that 90% figure right out of my ass, but you get the point). I know entire State agencies that are using their perfectly good world routable IPs ... (wait for it)... Behind a NAT!!!

Its not the way the net was designed to work, but we've been using it that way since dirt.

Re:I don't think they care. (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156312)

I doubt APNIC will be the first, as they got three /8s (two requested and one of the final five) out of the final issuance from IANA. Barring a change in their issuing policy, ARIN is going to be the first to run out, followed by APNIC, then RIPE. LACNIC and AfriNIC are probably good for at least a year.

Re:I don't think they care. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35156280)

Waiting until the very last minute to take action does seem very human-like, after all. The future? Nope! Wait until the catastrophe strikes.

Why would they? (1)

wampus (1932) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155632)

What motivation would Cisco possibly have for providing firmware updates to old, cheap routers?

Re:Why would they? (1)

Pollardito (781263) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155840)

This is about new routers. It's right in the summary

Re:Why would they? (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155884)

The do it all the time [cisco.com] . Why would they stop now.

Who cares? (0, Troll)

Ruprecht the Monkeyb (680597) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155636)

99.9% of those Linksys routers will have no need to run IPv6 in their effective lifetime. When did people develop this sense of entitlement that every little cheap-ass consumer product they buy ought to be future-proof?

Re:Who cares? (1)

rrossman2 (844318) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155684)

Considering most OS's out there support IPv6 (Vista, 7, Linux, Mac OS X) and most have it defaulted ON out of the box, why not add the capability? I don't know how many of the Linksys routers still run a version of linux out of the box, but it wouldn't be hard to add in, and allow the home network to run on IPv6 (or drop back to IPv4 if need be). Not that it's a huge deal, but it's not so much future proofing as it is something already in your home, on your network, just under/not utilized.

Re:Who cares? (4, Insightful)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155804)

Considering most OS's out there support IPv6 (Vista, 7, Linux, Mac OS X) and most have it defaulted ON out of the box, why not add the capability?

Because it would cost Cisco money to do so, and they would get no financial benefit out of it. Those routers were never advertised with IPv6 support, so why should they be upgraded for free?

Re:Who cares? (1)

rrossman2 (844318) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155944)

I'm not talking about older units, I'm more so talking about the new(er) units out now

Re:Who cares? (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156058)

Those routers were never advertised with IPv6 support, so why should they be upgraded for free?

Re:Who cares? (1)

KronosReaver (932860) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155724)

When did people develop this sense of entitlement that every little cheap-ass consumer product they buy ought to be future-proof?

Last Sunday during the Super Bowl when Ozzy and The Bieber told them it should be that way.

Re:Who cares? (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155728)

How often do you think people swap out their routers? I've been using same one since late 2005 and see no reason to upgrade (no, 802.11n is not enough of a reason).

Re:Who cares? (1, Insightful)

wampus (1932) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155800)

You will when your ISP mandates IPv6. See how that works? There needs to be some reason for them to keep making new consumer gear.

Re:Who cares? (2)

dkf (304284) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156108)

You will when your ISP mandates IPv6.

The ISPs have another alternative: refuse to offer connectivity except via NAT unless you're using IPv6. If you're content with being a second-class user, you can continue to use your crappy Linksys. Your call.

Re:Who cares? (1)

Fishbulb (32296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155826)

The problem isn't the expectation of being future-proof, the problem is the very small value of "future" [straightdope.com] (now a moving target per the manufacturer).

Re:Who cares? (4, Insightful)

shish (588640) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156128)

Cheap gadgets not being future-proof I can understand, but this is a $180 gadget not being 10-years-ago-proof...

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35156218)

My Linksys 24-port switch stopped supporting RJ-45 connections after 7 months. After forking over big coin for the Cisco name brand, I don't mind saying that I was unimpressed at what a POS I'd been peddled.

... cheap-ass consumer product...

You hit that nail right on the head.

It should be noted (1)

macara (1813628) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155644)

You can in fact use IPv6 on Linksys routers supporting custom firmwares, while it's still not exactly direct factory support it's not exactly impossible either.

Comeon guys (5, Funny)

Altus (1034) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155646)

Go easy on them, Cisco is such a small company and really there was no way they could have seen this coming.

Re:Comeon guys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35155752)

I know this is sarcasm but Cisco was actually one of the first to sell IPv6-capable core routers. So their lack of support for this in their home routers is astonishing.

Re:Comeon guys (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155818)

>>>no way they could have seen this coming

Um.

What? I saw the IPv4 exhaustion coming two years ago, and I don't even work in this field. Cisco should have known years ahead and built-in the v6 code just like Microsoft did with Vista years ahead of schedule.

Re:Comeon guys (3, Informative)

niado (1650369) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155838)

>>>no way they could have seen this coming

Um.

What? I saw the IPv4 exhaustion coming two years ago, and I don't even work in this field. Cisco should have known years ahead and built-in the v6 code just like Microsoft did with Vista years ahead of schedule.

whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh.

Re:Comeon guys (0)

wampus (1932) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156204)

Two whole years ago? It's been in the hand wringing press for a decade or so. Might want to get off dialup, it's impeding your ability to get timely news.

Re:Comeon guys (2)

darkmeridian (119044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155830)

It should be no big deal for them to license code from Tomato USB firmware or DD-WRT, both of which support IPv6 amongst many other really cool features. I don't buy routers that do not support DD-WRT, and I strongly prefer routers that support Tomato USB.

Hopefully, failing that, Cisco can still add IPv6 support through a future firmware upgrade. I doubt anyone who just spent $180 on a router is going to buy a new one a year from now.

Re:Comeon guys (1)

greed (112493) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156026)

The only problem is, they'd have to agree to the GPL.

I won't recommend a Linksys router for anyone who wants something "fancier" than a WRT54GL. It's so hard to tell what you're going to wind up with, and some of them are flakier than a good pie crust. Some have heat issues. Many will trash parts of their config on power blips--doing things like exposing your entire LAN as the Wi Fi network "linksys" with no security at all.

I won't recommend _ANY_ SOHO router that has to run the manufacturer's firmware. Unless you've got enough $$$ for the Apple Airport Extreme Base Station one.

Re:Comeon guys (2)

Mr. DOS (1276020) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156166)

The only problem is, they'd have to agree to the GPL.

They already did. Why else do you think the WRT54GL and WRT160NL exist?

Re:Comeon guys (2)

Demonantis (1340557) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156172)

Don't they own a /8? I bet not supporting IPv6 will generate them a lot of revenue in the future renting ip addresses. I bet you they saw it coming.

home routers dont need it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35155648)

if the modem supports ip6

Re:home routers dont need it (1)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155730)

They do at least on the WAN side.

Re:home routers dont need it (1)

smoothnorman (1670542) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155868)

So if one is just using the trusty old ip4(only) router on the personal side (PAN/LAN/whatever) of a comcrapstic cable modem then even when/if Comcast goes ip6 one will be ok? ...is that what yer say'n? (and can we have that notarized? [wink])

Re:home routers dont need it (1)

Tarlus (1000874) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156060)

In the case of home broadband such as cable or DSL, the modem (which is a technical misnomer, but still the accepted name) is, in its simplest description, just a way to adapt digital network traffic from a cable or land line to ethernet. On the user end there still needs to be a device to accept the IP address assigned by the ISP, whether it is a computer, web router, etc. There do exist combination cable modem / routers which do all of this as one encased device. Cisco/Linksys is a manufacturer of these, in fact. I have also used Qwest DSL modems in the past which also had a router built in. But as a standalone unit, a modem cannot hold an IP address.

My toaster doesn't provide IPv6 either (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35155650)

when is the toaster manufacturer going to send me a free upgrade?

Lol Cisco (1)

McTickles (1812316) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155652)

Cisco has always been way over rated IMHO...
One thing for sure though they have huge ego and people becoming so-called Cisco "Experts" do as well....

Why do we need IPv6? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35155658)

Pardon me if this sounds amazingly ignorant, but why does the average person or small business need IPv6 connectivity? Aren't most ISPs going to do the 4-6 translation for these people?

As well, last I checked Linksys home/small business products don't even support subnets larger than a class C anyway, so anyone using these products probably doesn't have more than 250 devices, let alone enough necessary to require IPv6 internally.

Re:Why do we need IPv6? (3, Insightful)

burne (686114) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155686)

1993 called, reminding me to remind you that you must have missed their memo about the end of 'class C' and their new, shiny CIDR-plan.

Re:Why do we need IPv6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35155942)

Okay, I apologize.

Linksys home/SMB products don't support subnets larger than a /24.

Better?

Re:Why do we need IPv6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35156112)

It's not something that can be done as a 4-to-6 translation. Your application on your computer needs to know it wants to connect to a IPv6 site, then open that connection. It needs IPv6 all the way end-to-end.

You might be thinking of 6in4 tunnel brokers who provide a IPv6 tunnel over a IPv4 connection. Think of that as more like being on a big IPv6 VPN.

Re:Why do we need IPv6? (2)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156114)

There will -- assuming the slow pace of the IPv6 deployment doesn't totally fuck it up -- probably be devices that consumers will want to use that will depend on IPv6, for things like multihoming.

If you don't have IPv6, it may become more difficult for your mobile device to roam seamlessly from the cellular WAN to the home LAN when you walk in the door, meaning that the video call or whatever it is you're doing (watching porn, more likely) will drop.

I frequently hear people basically claiming that "nobody needs IPv6" or "nobody needs end-to-end connectivity," and it has a certain "640k is good enough..." ring to it. Of course people don't need IPv6 now, because they don't have IPv6 now -- ergo they can't depend on it yet. But once we have a critical mass of users with true IPv6, so that developers can begin to take advantage of it, then we're going to start to see services that depend on it, and users will start to depend on them.

Re:Why do we need IPv6? (2)

cmburns69 (169686) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156140)

Completely hiding the end user from IPv6 is extremely difficult for an ISP. As websites migrate to IPv6 (without an IPv4 version), what IP address should the end user be directed to?

For example:

1. SomeCorp.com sets up his website with only an IPv6 address.
2. Joe Schmoe attempts to visit the website.
3. The DNS query for SomeCorp.com returns the IPv6 address.
4. Joe Schmoe's computer cannot get to the address, because his IPv6 has been disabled by his ISP.

What this means is that the users router MUST support IPv6 unless the ISP supports tunneling. And I suspect this will be beyond most users.

Inexcusable (3, Insightful)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155660)

Apple, Netgear, Dlink, etc are offering support for it.

This is why no one wants to switch yet. If the users can't access your sites businesses are not going to judge it very cost effective to make them available on v6.

Re:Inexcusable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35155748)

DLink is NOT offering support for ipv6 except on specific models. I own an earlier model of the DIR-655 and it will never be updated to support ipv6 according to Dlink support.

Modern Marketing Theory (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155908)

We're number 1 ... so we don't give a rat's ass.

Re:Inexcusable (0)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155934)

Netgear WGT-624 v3 with latest firmware. No IPv6 in sight, and dd-wrt is out of the question too.

I don't want to buy a new router. This one is working fine... in fact this one was a replacement for another (DLINK) that had severe signal quality issues. This sucker has decent range, even through my main "wet wall."

Re:Inexcusable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35156052)

Just to share my experience, I own a Netgear WNR3500L and with the latest firmware it supports IPv6 perfectly. It even have an option to 'auto-detect' and if your ISP doesn't supports IPv6 yet it auto-configure a 6to4 tunnel. It's a great way to try the IPv6 without hassle.

Re:Inexcusable (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156092)

So why are people still buying Linksys routers when only the other consumer routers support IPv6? No way it could be that consumers don't have any use for IPv6, impossible!

DHCPv6 Is lacking everywhere... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35155666)

As the subject says, the only open source DHCPv6 stacks are virtually unmaintained so you really can't be too harsh on Cisco and co

Re:DHCPv6 Is lacking everywhere... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35155732)

Really? [isc.org]

Re:DHCPv6 Is lacking everywhere... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35155864)

Why on earth would you want DHCPv6? Router advertisements and SLAAC is much easier

Re:DHCPv6 Is lacking everywhere... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35155974)

How will you give a set of nameservers or NTP servers to your hosts without DHCPv6? Configure it all manually/staticly? You need DHCPv6..

Re:DHCPv6 Is lacking everywhere... (1)

zn0k (1082797) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156012)

Name servers and NTP servers can be propagated via ND options as long as the client OS can pick up on those options.

DHCPv6 is primarily interesting for prefix delegation.

Re:DHCPv6 Is lacking everywhere... (1)

zn0k (1082797) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155996)

Prefix delegation. You can't expect ISPs to configure static routes via SLAAC assigned addresses on customer router's WAN interfaces for the prefixes the customer is going to use on the LAN interface.

Re:DHCPv6 Is lacking everywhere... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35156162)

DNS

Duh just run Linux... (1)

jamesdood (468240) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155672)

Just run a Linux Distro on it like DD-WRT http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/IPv6

The firmware it comes with is crappy anyway...

Re:Duh just run Linux... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35155902)

oh yeah, and then spend your time on building ip6tables yourself and editing a bunch of text files to actually start using IPv6. Come on... IPv6 is still too complex for your mom and grandma.

OpenWRT (1)

Tomun (144651) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155714)

I have an old Linksys router and put OpenWRT on it. It supported ipv6 just fine with that firmware on it but ran out of disk space as soon as I tried to add qos support. I went back the the stupidly expensive Cisco branded router that's full of bugs..

I don't see Linksys as core equipment. (1)

swschrad (312009) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155742)

meaning it's not going to connect on the big-wacky side of the interwackytubes thing. it's going to be on a 10 network or a 192.168 network and fed by NAT from some host that has bgrp to the real thing. non-story. now, Foundry or Cisco that can't work on IPv6, that's news. 2007 news.

Re:I don't see Linksys as core equipment. (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156302)

Getting rid of NAT is the whole reason to switch to IPv6. NAT is evil and should never happen. And before you say it, there is NO security benefit over a properly configured stateful firewall.

Re:I don't see Linksys as core equipment. (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156344)

meaning it's not going to connect on the big-wacky side of the interwackytubes thing. it's going to be on a 10 network or a 192.168 network and fed by NAT from some host that has bgrp to the real thing.

Forcing even more ISPs to use LSNAT, making life difficult for all their customers and delaying the transition even more for everybody.

quit buying cisco (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155760)

Seriously, they sell this stuff here and KNOW that those that bought this chinese junk, will be forced to buy it again within another 2 years. Totally sick.

DD-WRT (1)

Nailer235 (1822054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155958)

Ironic that literally the first page I open after flashing a Cisco-Linksys router w/DD-WRT, and finally getting online, is this thread. DD-WRT for the win. IPv6 and so, so much more.

Those WRT54G derivatives (1)

moriya (195881) | more than 3 years ago | (#35155998)

I run a v3 (or was it v4?) router w/ Tomato (http://www.polarcloud.com/tomato/) firmware. Given the nature of GPL firmwares, wouldn't it be possible just to enable IPv6 support in the router? Correct me if I am wrong, this should not be a hardware issue at all, right?

Disappointing a company as large as Cisco to not enable support for IPv6 for the Linksys routers out there. Perhaps this is a sign for other router manufacturers like Buffalo to step up and be the first.

Re:Those WRT54G derivatives (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156286)

> Correct me if I am wrong, this should not be a hardware issue at all, right?

It could. First, they may have been so stingy with memory that there's no room. Second, they may have made "unauthorized" upgrades difficult or impossible. Doesn't matter. though. 99.99% of the owners of these routers are ordinary consumers.

I just bought one.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35156004)

Wow, I just bought a E2000 literally a month ago, so I can't return it. They better make a firmware update for IPV6, or that will be $70 down the toilet.

One Word ... (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156006)

DD-WRT [dd-wrt.com]

As someone who wanted to test his home router with Comcast IPV6 testing, I was sorely disappointed with the firmware running on my router. Appearently the version I have USED to have some IPV6 support, but recent revs have either broken it, or stopped supporting it.

Cisco doesn't care about Linksys brand. It was simply a marketing decision to buy the company to promote Corporate products. I won't buy Corporate Cisco equipment if I can ever help it. My company is replacing Cisco with much less expensive HP gear and can't be happier.

Do you hear that Cisco, your Microsoft style tactics will let your lessor rivals overtake you.

If you have existing Linksys gear, see if DD-WRT works on it. If it does, you'll get MUCH better support and it is IPV6.

http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/IPV6 [dd-wrt.com]

Okay, what am I missing here? (1)

clyde_cadiddlehopper (1052112) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156046)

A slashdot member posted in 2005 [slashdot.org] (almost six years ago) that he was using a LinkSys router for an ipV6 trial.

Re:Okay, what am I missing here? (2)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156226)

> Okay, what am I missing here?

The fact that some of their bottom of the line consumer routers still don't support IPv6 despite the fact that their more expensive products have supported it for years.

Irresponsible. (4, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156120)

This is really irresponsible on Cisco's part. I don't care about their monetary considerations, adding IPv6 support into their Linux derived routers wouldn't have been all that hard or costly for them.

Their refusal to enable IPv6 support is having a bad effect on IPv6 adoption. I don't think most people realise how bad IPv4 exhaustion can be. IPv4 exhaustion puts a cap on internet growth, which in turn retards economic growth.

Seriously Cisco, fuck you, just fuck you.

One word (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35156216)

Stinksys

Sell More Routers? (1)

ryanisflyboy (202507) | more than 3 years ago | (#35156306)

Sounds like a great way to sell more routers. Most people won't understand the details. If some Geek Squad goon says "you need to upgrade your router to support the New Internet(TM)." Most people will pony up the $50 and move on.

Instead of spewing hate, we should be lauding Cisco on their capitalist business savvy. They are going to make loads of money selling people new gear that they otherwise wouldn't need.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?