3 ms·

> BSkyB is a fixed line broadband provider, but in the UK it's usual for the ISP to supply the router Yeah, this is where the “IPv6 is different^Wcomplicated t

by tolien 8y ago

> BSkyB is a fixed line broadband provider, but in the UK it's usual for the ISP to supply the router Yeah, this is where the “IPv6 is different^Wcomplicated to set up” argument falls flat for me. For most (consumer) users (at least in the UK), they get a free router from their ISP that’s already configured to do IPv4 NAT. For the minority that buy their own hardware, IPv4 NAT is enabled by default in hardware targeted at consumers. If it were configured to firewall inbound IPv6 traffic by default there should be nothing else to do. If you need to forward ports you’re in the admin screens anyway (unless you use UPnP). This is like arguing IPv4 is inherently complicated because if you opt out of the provided hardware and buy some Cisco monstrosity you have to configure NAT by yourself. Which is perfectly true but the massive majority aren’t going to do that. What really didn’t help adoption is that IPv6 support was an afterthought at best for a lot of router makers, and for a long time was riddled with bugs.

vetinari 8y ago
What isn't really helping adoption of IPv6 support now is attitude of some ISPs. There are ISPs that use migration to IPv6 as a way to tighten their reign over users. They will give you DS-lite only (ok...), but with /64 (no /56, no /48). They will force their router on you, where in past with IPv4 they would provide an option for bridge. Their router cannot do PD (if it had more than /64, so maybe that's the reason why they do not provide that), so if you want a virtual net with VMs on your machine, you are going to waste your time playing around with IPv6 NAT, which doesn't work correctly anywhere. You can't control RA/DHCPv6 on the router, you cannot really control firewall rules. Suddenly, the ISPs has ony free reign over your network, but also over policies on your network. So for undemanding users that's fine, it will work with Facebook and Netflix. For a power user, the IPv6 offer is unacceptable, not because of IPv6 properties, but due to limiting implementation that the ISPs force.
- rocqua 8y ago
  I wonder to what degree this is simply because the Interface for proper IPv6 management has had less work and therefore is much more restricted. On the router I bought myself, there are a lot of settings for IPv4, and not a lot more than an 'enable-disable' toggle for IPv6. I guess this is so they can state 'supports IPv6', but for any real use, it is useless.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

by tolien 8y ago

vetinari 8y ago

What isn't really helping adoption of IPv6 support now is attitude of some ISPs. There are ISPs that use migration to IPv6 as a way to tighten their reign over users. They will give you DS-lite only (ok...), but with /64 (no /56, no /48). They will force their router on you, where in past with IPv4 they would provide an option for bridge. Their router cannot do PD (if it had more than /64, so maybe that's the reason why they do not provide that), so if you want a virtual net with VMs on your machine, you are going to waste your time playing around with IPv6 NAT, which doesn't work correctly anywhere. You can't control RA/DHCPv6 on the router, you cannot really control firewall rules. Suddenly, the ISPs has ony free reign over your network, but also over policies on your network. So for undemanding users that's fine, it will work with Facebook and Netflix. For a power user, the IPv6 offer is unacceptable, not because of IPv6 properties, but due to limiting implementation that the ISPs force.

rocqua 8y ago
I wonder to what degree this is simply because the Interface for proper IPv6 management has had less work and therefore is much more restricted. On the router I bought myself, there are a lot of settings for IPv4, and not a lot more than an 'enable-disable' toggle for IPv6. I guess this is so they can state 'supports IPv6', but for any real use, it is useless.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]