Who's IPv6'd their network then?

bigredshark · 21 Oct 2009 at 15:18

growse said:
Hmmm, we're straying into theoretical future use cases for the home network. I'm not sure any run-of-the-mill broadband user accesses their home network from their mobile, so regardless of IPv4 or IPv6, this is going to have to be a nice experience if it's desirable, be that port forwarding (eugh) or opening a firewall port.

As for the ISP managed device, I can see how that may be desirable from an ISP point of view, and I can also see how some users would find that *very* undesirable (me).

Well, there's currently the option to set up remote recording on sky plus, given IP access to your PVR without the bother of NAT that would be possible with any PVR. Running game servers, accessing webcams...there's a fairly long list of right now possibilities.

I don't think it's too undesirable. It'll just give you a ethernet cable with an IP range on it, what you do with it is up to you. You won't be able to access the DSL sync settings etc but your ISP will be able to which should make end to end troubleshooting much much easier...

Sumanji · 21 Oct 2009 at 15:50

I'd like to have a play with this, but I imagine every single bit of kit on your network needs to be IPv6 ready?

Su

bigredshark · 21 Oct 2009 at 16:06

Sumanji said:
I'd like to have a play with this, but I imagine every single bit of kit on your network needs to be IPv6 ready?

Su

Well the sticking point is likely your router only, switches (assuming they're dumb layer2 switches) don't matter. Any recent windows, OSX or Linux machine will have ipv6 enabled out of the box. When I enabled my home network (tunnel to he.net for connectivity from my Juniper SSG) I was pleasantly surprised how easy it was to get basic access going.

bledd · 21 Oct 2009 at 16:08

for now, I'm keeping my head in the sand

J.B · 22 Oct 2009 at 13:56

bledd. said:
for now, I'm keeping my head in the sand

s0ck · 22 Oct 2009 at 15:44

Sin_Chase said:
Not sure what the fuss is about, will use it when necessity dictates I should or for testing/learning. Not before.

bledd · 22 Oct 2009 at 16:00

we should just delete China

Indy500 · 22 Oct 2009 at 16:04

IPv6 hasn't been rolled out en masse, and my ISP seems to have enough addresses available for now so I'm not bothered. Besides, the routing and subnetting is annoying enough with 4 octets thanks

bigredshark · 22 Oct 2009 at 16:25

sr4470 said:
IPv6 hasn't been rolled out en masse, and my ISP seems to have enough addresses available for now so I'm not bothered. Besides, the routing and subnetting is annoying enough with 4 octets thanks

Only because everybody has one IP address for their entire home network and has to use NAT as a result, but nobody seems to mind having a horribly crippled setup so there we go...

gord · 22 Oct 2009 at 16:45

Its not a case of nobody minds.. nobody knows!

Manual management of connections seems like a step backwards to me. But I hope I'm missing the point.

Indy500 · 22 Oct 2009 at 17:01

bigredshark said:
Only because everybody has one IP address for their entire home network and has to use NAT as a result, but nobody seems to mind having a horribly crippled setup so there we go...

I'm the only one here, with one machine, so I don't need multiple IPs. I understand your point but it is going to take a lot of overhauling of equipment and re-learning to become established

bigredshark · 22 Oct 2009 at 17:04

gord said:
Its not a case of nobody minds.. nobody knows!

Manual management of connections seems like a step backwards to me. But I hope I'm missing the point.

The point being it makes communication inwards much harder than it should be, look at the slingplayer, that relies on the manufacturer maintaining an online service to allow you to connect back to it. That could go and you'd just connect back to the device directly without any worries, it's the need to use NAT which prevents that.

There should be loads of services like that and in the next 5-10 years, an IP enabled central heating controller would allow you to switch on the heating from your phone on the way home for example. Sounds a slightly geeky concept today but then home computers sounded fairly silly once...

It's not more complex, in fact for clueless home users it's far easier, autoconfig and plug and play style services will be much better long term, it's the change in mindset which is difficult for people who're slightly technical..

Indy500 · 22 Oct 2009 at 17:07

bigredshark said:
The point being it makes communication inwards much harder than it should be, look at the slingplayer, that relies on the manufacturer maintaining an online service to allow you to connect back to it. That could go and you'd just connect back to the device directly without any worries, it's the need to use NAT which prevents that.

There should be loads of services like that and in the next 5-10 years, an IP enabled central heating controller would allow you to switch on the heating from your phone on the way home for example. Sounds a slightly geeky concept today but then home computers sounded fairly silly once...

There are already IP phone designs that could potentially communicate with other appliances (IBM seem to like the idea anyway). Plenty of items use a computer chip of some sort, even if it's just for a timer (like toasters).

gord · 22 Oct 2009 at 17:15

bigredshark said:
It's not more complex, in fact for clueless home users it's far easier, autoconfig and plug and play style services will be much better long term, it's the change in mindset which is difficult for people who're slightly technical..

I see that, and I see the advantages of turning on my heating before I get home.. but how does that remain secure? I don't want Dave turning on my heating..

growse · 22 Oct 2009 at 17:26

gord said:
I see that, and I see the advantages of turning on my heating before I get home.. but how does that remain secure? I don't want Dave turning on my heating..

You let application-level authentication do application-level authentication. It's not a networking problem. If you desperately want to move it into the networking domain, IPv6 has got IPSEC built in.

Antar Bolaeisk · 22 Oct 2009 at 21:12

Forgive my ignorance but what exactly is involved in changing to ipv6? I assume it's not as easy as just flicking a toggle switch.

bigredshark · 22 Oct 2009 at 21:30

Antar Bolaeisk said:
Forgive my ignorance but what exactly is involved in changing to ipv6? I assume it's not as easy as just flicking a toggle switch.

Today it's a fairly technical affair, because BT's DSL infrastructure doesn't support it natively so it needs to be tunneled to your router (or even your machine directly). No DSL or cable provider I know of in the UK supports it natively right now but that will change.

tunnelbroker.com will tell you more if you're interested.

The exception is if you have a Mac, in which case it's a little hidden but the 6in4 adapter is pretty much just a toggle switch to get ipv6 working.

Azuse05 · 22 Oct 2009 at 22:44

Windows 7 has Teredo tunnlling built in (on by default) which isn't the greatest in all honesty, but does at least ensure users won't be caught short when they do finally need it, regardless of the hardware.

Antar Bolaeisk · 23 Oct 2009 at 10:31

bigredshark said:
Today it's a fairly technical affair, because BT's DSL infrastructure doesn't support it natively so it needs to be tunneled to your router (or even your machine directly). No DSL or cable provider I know of in the UK supports it natively right now but that will change.

tunnelbroker.com will tell you more if you're interested.

The exception is if you have a Mac, in which case it's a little hidden but the 6in4 adapter is pretty much just a toggle switch to get ipv6 working.

Was going to say that if England weren't supporting it natively then Ireland was likely to be a few years behind them but it appears as if Eircom started trials way back in 2005 with one of the requirements being that you already had a static ipv4 address (I don't). Everything seems to have gone quiet since though.

I'll give what you're suggesting a go simply out of curiosity. Thanks for the information.

Sin_Chase · 23 Oct 2009 at 12:57

I actually do not see a problem with NAT for a home user. It's not like they are running multiple services all on the same ports and have a need for multiple public IPs.

It's not exactly a super hard concept to grasp and the fact it is not god awfully simple is probably a good thing for the sake of security. Any average home user who wants to expose something to the internet would be wise to have to research NATing and get some background knowledge as a result.

Anyway, I do not have an issue with IPv6 and welcome any change for the better, or just if necessary, but I do not support a jump into the deep end and I certainly will not be using it at home for the sake of it (Now).

Some people see a bigger 6 over a 4 and think it's like upgrading your DSL line to a faster speed though, which is somewhat baffling