ns-1887.awsdns-43.co.uk. 60 IN AAAA 2600:9000:5307:5f00::1
Also I have servers in colocation with two datacenters, and for both I had to ask to the support to get an IPv6 range. We are very far from IPv6 becoming a standard feature.
I use AAISP as my ISP and they have been providing IPv6 for a very long time: http://aa.net.uk/kb-broadband-ipv6.html
BT have at least partially rolled out support, as I have a v6 allocation on a BT broadband service.
"[IPv6 support] Home Hubs 4 and 5 support from early 2017"
Baidu, Twitter, Instagram and Reddit are also major players who could make a huge difference.
If this is really what they're thinking, then they have no pride in their work and will never be the best at what they do. I suspect most of the engineers working for Amazon, Twitter, and GitHub are well aware that they're lagging in ipv6, and are very intent on catching up.
Also, I am not sure if googleadservices.com should be on that list. Leaving advertising on IPv4 to die might be for the best. ;)
"End-to-end addressing" is typically an end user issue, where end users use NAT. In the early days of the internet, nobody used NAT.
There's also ULA that can be used for non-internet connected networks and some other special scenarios, but it would be a bad idea (and against recommended practice) to use them to port your RFC1918 addressing to IPv6.
At a guess, many of most competent ISPs have done their thing and now we're seeing the more sluggish middle. Or? Comments?
What's holding back further progress is mostly people with their own NAT routers/DHCP that's not set up for IPv6, or company networks where the transition isn't planned. That's going to change very, very slowly indeed.
Every vendor (Cisco/Juniper/Alcatel/Huawei) had a different way to do it and since B2B billing depended on it IPv6 adoption was not as easy as expected.
And the standard MIB (management information base) for SNMP only gave you IPv4 traffic.
So, if you wanted to measure the traffic you interchange with a third party on IPv6 you had to be tied to a specific way of doing in (some had private or experimental MIBs for that, in other cases you had to move the data through a tunnel and measure traffic inside the tunnel minus overhead.).
Very easy to make mistakes specially if there is a problem with the traffic late at night and somebody forgets to put you in the loop.
Let's not get started on "pro" versions where you just don't get IPv6 at all, ever, and on the phone you can even get them mumbling that it's not even on the table (Completel).
As soon as I switched to IPv4 everything worked fine.
I suppose that nobody at Free is really monitoring their IPv6 network in the same way they do it for IPv4.
I also haven't been able to get PPPoEv6 working in macOS.
If people don't need IPv6, then why bother. My impression is that the content providers don't care about IPv6, so I assume they have plenty of IPv4 space.
Some large consumer ISP are short on IPv4 address, but in that case, they will will make sure their customers get IPv6 capable CPEs.
Anything else is a very nice hobby.
Then they have a big ipv4 nat for cell phones in the BTS. Weird.
I would have never thought we'd get this far this fast. Looks like the switchover is actually going to happen.
Well, I am. Now let met enjoy my statistical insignificance !
do we see something similar with .onion addresses?
ive found it much more reliable and secure to give devices i want access to from anywhere a .onion address rather than a ipv6 one.
secure by design rather than plaintext insecure and only works on some internet connections occasionally by design nightmare that is ipv6.
My second-favorite problem, after that was solved, was developers constantly using IPv4-only code. Their eventual solution was to just disable IPv4 entirely so that anyone committing IPv4-only code was committing broken code.
It's amazing how much work it takes to bring people into the future.
Usually the problem is memory. A machine with full routing enabled needs much more memory for IPv6 than for IPv4 and when routers run out of memory they just crash, reboot, and start again...
Interesting - why? I would have thought that routing tables for ipv6 would be a fraction of the size of their ipv4 equivalents. Am I wrong? Or is this just sloppy programming on the part of those switch programmers?
Sky and BT both looking good, sadly Virgin didn't present this year.
As other countries go IPv6, more IPv4 addresses become available for the big cloud providers.
Example: Verizon Wireless.
No, it's not. As a sysadmin, you should know the difference between NAT and a stateful firewall, and that NAT alone doesn't prevent packets from being routed to local addresses.
> There's little reason that individual devices need globally routable IP addresses.
NAT has been more damaging to the development of network software than any other factor. NAT breaks the development of true network software, such that entire categories of software haven't even been considered.
NAT forces extremely complicated hacks and centralized management of true peer to peer connections. The benefit of the internet has been that any peer has the capability to publish. NAT breaks that benefit, turning the internet back into cable TV, where most people need an imprimatur to publish.
Thats a weird claim to make against IPv4. Grab a calculator and see how much memory is required by a IPv6 /64 address space.
IoT devices, if I had any use for them, would go on my private LAN. My private-public router can do complex stateful tracking, because it only has to handle a few connections at a time. Meanwhile my grown-up internet devices go on the public side and get actual internet access, meaning that e.g. two people inside my house can play an online game with a person outside my house, and aren't slowed down by a complex connection-tracking router. Also means my guests don't get access to my IoT devices.
If they need outgoing connections, they likely also need incoming when we are speaking about stateless filtering. Without incoming connections only UDP would be allowed and it would be usually impossible to determine if the packet should be send again (it would only be possible if there was out of band method to detect it).
Ok, I will admit that it's possible to check the TCP headers and just drop incoming SYN packets without ACK, but then you need to start trusting that the IoT device can handle invalid TCP packets.
I have more faith in that than I have faith in a router that does complex state-tracking logic to not contain RCE vulnerabilities itself.
Why am I trying to fill out in memory an entire /64? More importantly what purpose will doing that for a home network that will at best have 100 nodes even with ipv6? The memory needed to route and track 100 ipv6 nodes vs 100 ipv4 is a rounding error. Even if I enabled privacy extensions the amount of addresses is miniscule.
Nat sucks, end of story, and yes ipv6 requires more memory. It is a bigger address range after all. We also gain a lot of what we lost with ipv4 years ago.
I've come across several routers that stop working (partially or completely) or spontaneously reboot when there are too many active NAT sessions. At a few customers I've had to set session limits to prevent some devices from being unable to talk to the WAN.
And given that most datacentres (outside of cloud services) are IPv6 enabled, this makes sense to secure server to server communications.
Right now my ISP (BT) gives you an IPv4 address, but it's dynamic. They charge extra for a static IP
"All BT broadband lines support IPv6 with a compatible router, except IPstream connections"
One of the problems is that a lot of companies think that IPv4 is good enough, since there's no discernable difference to end users right now. Every IPv6 site is also accessible over IPv4, and the community is already heavily invested in engineering around the shortcomings otherwise created by NAT on IPv4.
Coupled with the additional cost and security considerations that have to go into an IPv6 deployment, we've got a good recipe for encouraging both ISPs and corporate providers to stay on IPv4 for as long as possible. (If we're unlucky, we might even see ISPs roll out carrier grade NAT instead of upgrading.)
Your Internet Service Provider (ISP) appears to be SCRR-10796 - Time Warner Cable Internet LLC, US
I'm in Ohio.
Your issue is site-specific; most likely your modem is outdated, but your router may also be configured to not try to acquire a block of IPv6 addresses.
I remember asking the installer about 3 years ago about it. He said I'd have it as soon as they turn it on at the central office...
I'm not really too worried about it yet as it's not a problem really yet. I hate talking to support people.
I went to the IPv6 page and it's not showing a V6 IP Address http://screencast.com/t/Xuq4VOfnS but the Dynamic page for IPv4 displays it in those text boxes(editing is disabled on them even though they look like inputs. A bit confusing UX if just looking at the image)
So it appears my firmware has it... strange. This is on the modem itself, not the router as it's a all in one.
Just found this: http://forums.timewarnercable.com/t5/IPv6/Not-getting-IPv6-A... from two months ago "I got someone from Tier 3 on the phone and he told me it was not available yet in my area." so hmm, sounds like some areas might be last to get it then.