So just in a surprised moment of serendipity, my _non-IT_ boyfriend has beaten me to IPv6 connectivity and he didn't even know it. I'm a little jealous as this has been on my two do list for over half a year. Back-story, early in 2015 I upgraded his home from early linksys WRT54G (linksys firmware), to a D-Link DIR-825 (rev. B1), with OpenWRT 14.07. Roughly a month ago OpenWRT 15 was release, so I logged into gather info for doing the firmware upgrade and see this. http://revident.net/images/OpenWRT-network-info-with-IPv6.png I've known Teksavvy, his provider, has had a beta program for IPv6 for DSL customers. I signed up, I have an allocation, but I've not used it yet. At some point, Teksavvy turned it live, and the OpenWRT router I set-up for my BF just picked it up and ran with it. It works! His connection gets a full 20/20 score from http://ipv6-test.com/ Out of box, no intervention. My boyfriend, and the two other room-mates have been using IPv6, for some unknown period (maybe months), with no observable difference. Just Wow! Had to share. ===== Just some info form my laptop. ======== [scott@arcticnoise fonts]$ ifconfig [...snip...] wlp1s0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 inet 192.168.4.230 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.4.255 inet6 fd1c:3456:4edf::1ef prefixlen 128 scopeid 0x0<global> inet6 2607:f2c0:9281:1900::1ef prefixlen 128 scopeid 0x0<global> inet6 2607:f2c0:9281:1900:3210:b3ff:fe9b:457c prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x0<global> inet6 fd1c:3456:4edf:0:3210:b3ff:fe9b:457c prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x0<global> inet6 fe80::3210:b3ff:fe9b:457c prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link> ether 30:10:b3:9b:45:7c txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet) RX packets 1828026 bytes 2043219415 (1.9 GiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 2457050 TX packets 1108781 bytes 250361333 (238.7 MiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 device interrupt 41 [scott@arcticnoise fonts]$ ping6 google.com PING google.com(yyz08s14-in-x05.1e100.net) 56 data bytes 64 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x05.1e100.net: icmp_seq=1 ttl=58 time=143 ms 64 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x05.1e100.net: icmp_seq=2 ttl=58 time=156 ms 64 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x05.1e100.net: icmp_seq=3 ttl=58 time=158 ms 64 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x05.1e100.net: icmp_seq=4 ttl=58 time=190 ms 64 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x05.1e100.net: icmp_seq=5 ttl=58 time=288 ms 64 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x05.1e100.net: icmp_seq=6 ttl=58 time=403 ms ^C --- google.com ping statistics --- 6 packets transmitted, 6 received, 0% packet loss, time 5005ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 143.201/223.390/403.423/93.816 ms [scott@arcticnoise fonts]$ ping6 -n google.com PING google.com(2607:f8b0:400b:80b::1005) 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 2607:f8b0:400b:80b::1005: icmp_seq=1 ttl=58 time=106 ms 64 bytes from 2607:f8b0:400b:80b::1005: icmp_seq=2 ttl=58 time=133 ms 64 bytes from 2607:f8b0:400b:80b::1005: icmp_seq=3 ttl=58 time=142 ms ^C --- google.com ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2001ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 106.601/127.501/142.416/15.227 ms -- Scott Sullivan
That's pure awesome! From:"Scott Sullivan" <scott@ss.org> Date:Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 10:07 AM Subject:[GTALUG] Surprise, IPv6! So just in a surprised moment of serendipity, my _non-IT_ boyfriend has beaten me to IPv6 connectivity and he didn't even know it. I'm a little jealous as this has been on my two do list for over half a year. Back-story, early in 2015 I upgraded his home from early linksys WRT54G (linksys firmware), to a D-Link DIR-825 (rev. B1), with OpenWRT 14.07. Roughly a month ago OpenWRT 15 was release, so I logged into gather info for doing the firmware upgrade and see this. http://revident.net/images/OpenWRT-network-info-with-IPv6.png I've known Teksavvy, his provider, has had a beta program for IPv6 for DSL customers. I signed up, I have an allocation, but I've not used it yet. At some point, Teksavvy turned it live, and the OpenWRT router I set-up for my BF just picked it up and ran with it. It works! His connection gets a full 20/20 score from http://ipv6-test.com/ Out of box, no intervention. My boyfriend, and the two other room-mates have been using IPv6, for some unknown period (maybe months), with no observable difference. Just Wow! Had to share. ===== Just some info form my laptop. ======== [scott@arcticnoise fonts]$ ifconfig [...snip...] wlp1s0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 inet 192.168.4.230 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.4.255 inet6 fd1c:3456:4edf::1ef prefixlen 128 scopeid 0x0<global> inet6 2607:f2c0:9281:1900::1ef prefixlen 128 scopeid 0x0<global> inet6 2607:f2c0:9281:1900:3210:b3ff:fe9b:457c prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x0<global> inet6 fd1c:3456:4edf:0:3210:b3ff:fe9b:457c prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x0<global> inet6 fe80::3210:b3ff:fe9b:457c prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link> ether 30:10:b3:9b:45:7c txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet) RX packets 1828026 bytes 2043219415 (1.9 GiB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 2457050 TX packets 1108781 bytes 250361333 (238.7 MiB) TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 device interrupt 41 [scott@arcticnoise fonts]$ ping6 google.com PING google.com(yyz08s14-in-x05.1e100.net) 56 data bytes 64 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x05.1e100.net: icmp_seq=1 ttl=58 time=143 ms 64 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x05.1e100.net: icmp_seq=2 ttl=58 time=156 ms 64 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x05.1e100.net: icmp_seq=3 ttl=58 time=158 ms 64 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x05.1e100.net: icmp_seq=4 ttl=58 time=190 ms 64 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x05.1e100.net: icmp_seq=5 ttl=58 time=288 ms 64 bytes from yyz08s14-in-x05.1e100.net: icmp_seq=6 ttl=58 time=403 ms ^C --- google.com ping statistics --- 6 packets transmitted, 6 received, 0% packet loss, time 5005ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 143.201/223.390/403.423/93.816 ms [scott@arcticnoise fonts]$ ping6 -n google.com PING google.com(2607:f8b0:400b:80b::1005) 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 2607:f8b0:400b:80b::1005: icmp_seq=1 ttl=58 time=106 ms 64 bytes from 2607:f8b0:400b:80b::1005: icmp_seq=2 ttl=58 time=133 ms 64 bytes from 2607:f8b0:400b:80b::1005: icmp_seq=3 ttl=58 time=142 ms ^C --- google.com ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2001ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 106.601/127.501/142.416/15.227 ms -- Scott Sullivan --- Talk Mailing List talk@gtalug.org http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
On 01/11/15 10:07 AM, Scott Sullivan wrote:
Out of box, no intervention. My boyfriend, and the two other room-mates have been using IPv6, for some unknown period (maybe months), with no observable difference.
Just a clarification on this. I did run some netstats during normal web-browsing on his Linux HTPC. I do see websites being accessed and served in IPv6. -- Scott Sullivan
On 11/01/2015 10:18 AM, Scott Sullivan wrote:
Just a clarification on this. I did run some netstats during normal web-browsing on his Linux HTPC. I do see websites being accessed and served in IPv6.
There's an addon for Firefox, Seamonkey and Chrome browsers called "ShowIP". It displays the IP address of the web site, so you can tell at a glance if you're connected via IPv6 or IPv4. BTW, I've been running IPv6 for over 5 years, but I get it via a 6in4 tunnel rather than from Rogers. Rogers does support IPv6 via 6to4 or 6rd tunnel, but I haven't heard of them offering native IPv6 yet. On the other hand, Telus is now moving to IPv6, so perhaps that will give Rogers, Bell etc. a nudge.
I had trouble getting my fortigate 60C do to both ip4 and ipv6 over pppoe. I just scored a fortigate 60D and amd trying to find the time/brain power to migrate my config to the new device and see if I get it up. ...phrasing. Also note: * I'm a teksavvy client with ipv4 and ipv6 allocations. * the foritgate 60c does the Hurricane electric ipv6 tunnel fine ( HE had a drop down config for it ). On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 10:29 AM, James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
On 11/01/2015 10:18 AM, Scott Sullivan wrote:
Just a clarification on this. I did run some netstats during normal web-browsing on his Linux HTPC. I do see websites being accessed and served in IPv6.
There's an addon for Firefox, Seamonkey and Chrome browsers called "ShowIP". It displays the IP address of the web site, so you can tell at a glance if you're connected via IPv6 or IPv4.
BTW, I've been running IPv6 for over 5 years, but I get it via a 6in4 tunnel rather than from Rogers. Rogers does support IPv6 via 6to4 or 6rd tunnel, but I haven't heard of them offering native IPv6 yet. On the other hand, Telus is now moving to IPv6, so perhaps that will give Rogers, Bell etc. a nudge.
--- Talk Mailing List talk@gtalug.org http://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 10:07:03AM -0500, Scott Sullivan wrote:
So just in a surprised moment of serendipity, my _non-IT_ boyfriend has beaten me to IPv6 connectivity and he didn't even know it. I'm a little jealous as this has been on my two do list for over half a year.
Back-story, early in 2015 I upgraded his home from early linksys WRT54G (linksys firmware), to a D-Link DIR-825 (rev. B1), with OpenWRT 14.07. Roughly a month ago OpenWRT 15 was release, so I logged into gather info for doing the firmware upgrade and see this.
I just enabled IPv6 on my DIR-825 (stock firmware) with Teksavvy yesterday, and it works great. Having a /56 does seem like extreme overkill, but it works. -- Len Sorensen
On 11/11/2015 04:04 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
I just enabled IPv6 on my DIR-825 (stock firmware) with Teksavvy yesterday, and it works great.
Having a /56 does seem like extreme overkill, but it works.
You can split that /56 into 256 /64s, for multiple networks or VLANs. Instead of the variable length subnets in IPv4, an IPv6 network is supposed to have a /64 prefix (IPv6 term for subnet).
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 04:14:56PM -0500, James Knott wrote:
You can split that /56 into 256 /64s, for multiple networks or VLANs. Instead of the variable length subnets in IPv4, an IPv6 network is supposed to have a /64 prefix (IPv6 term for subnet).
Sure, and I think my router may have already done that. I would have to check. Having that seems like overkill too. :) -- Len Sorensen
On 11/11/2015 05:10 PM, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
Having that seems like overkill too.
Not really. It's intended to allow for MAC based addresses, including the 64 bit ones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_address
participants (5)
-
David Thornton -
James Knott -
Lennart Sorensen -
Sammy Lao -
Scott Sullivan