Please wait...
<< KERMIT FLAILS >>
I NOW HAVE IPV6 AT HOME !!!1111
I've probably had it for a while and didn't know it. Every couple of months I give it a try. But I think I was doing it wrong. Verizon uses DHCPv6-PD to allocate a pool of addresses for your internal network, but through a combination of research and experimentation I discovered two things:
1. It fails if you request an address or other info; you have to only request a prefix.
2. You have to discover a link-local interface on the WAN interface first.
This is WEIRD. But it's how they have their network set up.
1. It fails if you request an address or other info; you have to only
request a prefix.
2. You have to discover a link-local interface on the WAN interface
first.
The whole point of Prefix Delegation is they give you your prefix and you assign addresses within it. Your provier is not supposed to give you addresses for your stuff.
I don't expect them to number my stuff. I would have liked a globally routable
address for the WAN interface of my router.
But I could live with the assertion that "the WAN link does not require global reachability so it does not have a globally reachable address". I have arguments all the time with people who insist on applying IPv4 thinking to IPv6 networks.
It can certainly be argued that point-to-point router links can and should use only their link-local addresses. That would really freak out the people who insist on /126 subnets for those links. They're the same people who freak out over the standard use of /64 for broadcast networks that only have a few hosts on them.
I love my IPv6 and I want everything to use it.
The thing I have to wait to find out is whether the prefix Verizon gave me will be persistent. I would hate it if I got a different prefix every time my router and/or fiber terminal rebooted, resulting in every device in my house getting renumbered. But as I've been saying for years now, to use IPv6 properly you have to think like a Novell Netware administrator: when something boots up, if it is providing a service to the network, the first thing it needs to do is register with a name service so the actual address doesn't matter.
But I could live with the assertion that "the WAN link does not require global reachability so it does not have a globally reachable address". I have arguments all the time with people who insist on applying IPv4 thinking to IPv6 networks.
It can certainly be argued that point-to-point router links can and should use only their link-local addresses. That would really freak out the people who insist on /126 subnets for those links. They're the same people who freak out over the standard use of /64 for broadcast networks that only have a few hosts on them.
I love my IPv6 and I want everything to use it.
The thing I have to wait to find out is whether the prefix Verizon gave me will be persistent. I would hate it if I got a different prefix every time my router and/or fiber terminal rebooted, resulting in every device in my house getting renumbered. But as I've been saying for years now, to use IPv6 properly you have to think like a Novell Netware administrator: when something boots up, if it is providing a service to the network, the first thing it needs to do is register with a name service so the actual address doesn't matter.
For the average person, i dont think V6 gives them anything.. Most just want their *insert mobile device here* to get online to watch cat videos.. Does V6 make that better somehow?
I know for me, ( not average but not special either ) i dont see it giving me anything i dont have now..
It doesn't provide any benefit to the consumer, until IPv4 is so over-saturated
that it starts to inhibit the development of new products and services. It
could also be argued that the absence of IPv6 and the presence of NAT is part
of what moved a lot of home automation stuff to use clown services instead
of just having the devices talk to each other directly.
For service providers, the benefits are manifold. I think I've mentioned before that T-Mobile is 100% IPv6-only, and has been since about 2018. They translate to IPv4 at the network edge when they have to. Other providers can and should follow suit.
Imagine how much easier development would be if we could once again count on end-to-end reachability with no NAT!
For service providers, the benefits are manifold. I think I've mentioned before that T-Mobile is 100% IPv6-only, and has been since about 2018. They translate to IPv4 at the network edge when they have to. Other providers can and should follow suit.
Imagine how much easier development would be if we could once again count on end-to-end reachability with no NAT!
That would scare me.
Tue Jun 27 2023 04:13:14 PM EDT from IGnatius T Foobar
Imagine how much easier development would be if we could once again count on end-to-end reachability with no NAT!
Wed Jun 28 2023 08:19:34 AM EDT from Nurb432That would scare me.
Tue Jun 27 2023 04:13:14 PM EDT from IGnatius T Foobar
Imagine how much easier development would be if we could once again count on end-to-end reachability with no NAT!
I would love having a real capital-I Internet again.
2023-06-27 16:13 from IGnatius T Foobar
It doesn't provide any benefit to the consumer, until IPv4 is so
over-saturated that it starts to inhibit the development of new
products and services. It could also be argued that the absence of
IPv6 and the presence of NAT is part of what moved a lot of home
automation stuff to use clown services instead of just having the
devices talk to each other directly.
For service providers, the benefits are manifold. I think I've
mentioned before that T-Mobile is 100% IPv6-only, and has been since
about 2018. They translate to IPv4 at the network edge when they have
to. Other providers can and should follow suit.
Imagine how much easier development would be if we could once again
count on end-to-end reachability with no NAT!
I think home networks would be still placed behind firewalls, so you could not count on end-to-end connectivity without poking holes in said firewalls. This means the home administrator would either set a firewall rule manually or set a service that automatically set the rules itself.
Most home users are dumb as potatoes, so IoT providers and mobile services providers would have had to implement firewall trasversal techniques in the cloud, just the same way we have TUN/STUN today for NAT trasversal.
NAT IS NOT A FIREWALL
NAT IS NOT A FIREWALL
NAT IS NOT A FIREWALL
I will continue saying this until the whole world understands.
Opening a port on a firewall is way easier than opening a port *and* mapping it to a different address on the inside. There will be standard ways to do it -- if there aren't already. Think about how UPnP can be used today to request an outside port from the inside.
Also, I don't care whether nontechnical users know how to do it. The pigopolists are going to continue to sell cloud services to those people for as long as the money continues to flow. I only care about the people who actually know how to operate their networks. Someone who buys a smart light bulb that calls home to Chingchang Guangdong Electric Industrial Corporation every five minutes isn't going to care whether it's doing so over IPv4 or IPv6. Someone who buys a smart light bulb that only sits there listening to commands from known addresses -- that person is going to install Home Assistant and will appreciate being able to have a view of the network from another location if they want to.
2023-07-15 16:38 from IGnatius T Foobar
NAT IS NOT A FIREWALL
NAT IS NOT A FIREWALL
NAT IS NOT A FIREWALL
Has anybody told you NAT is a firewall recently?
Yes, far too many arguments with people who ought to know better, actually.
I actually wish they hadn't called it IPv6, because it leads people into believing that they should just bring their IPv4 practices right along with them. After all, it's just IP with 128-bit addresses, right? WRONG! If you treat it like that your network is going to be rubbish.
I actually wish they hadn't called it IPv6, because it leads people into believing that they should just bring their IPv4 practices right along with them. After all, it's just IP with 128-bit addresses, right? WRONG! If you treat it like that your network is going to be rubbish.
Meanwhile, over in the Google Overlords room, we've been talking about the
disappearance of the landline, that venerable old telephone service that you
had to share with everyone else in the household. Over there we were discussing
the cultural implications of moving from a service where a telephone number
belongs to a *location* to one where a telephone number belongs to a *person*.
Every call is now a person-to-person call, something the telco used to charge you extra for.
Over here we get to talk about the technology a bit. I think a lot of people still have that landline because it came as part of a bundle, and it was actually more expensive NOT to have it. That only works until you're also interested in getting rid of the crappy television service, I guess. For me, it took that plus a couple of years plus being off-contract.
But even the telcos are finally retiring POTS, it seems. Here in Verizon land they're now actively moving POTS customers to some variant of FiOS (fiber PON). Over at ione of my data centers, we got a call from Verizon "you have a POTS line, we're going to move it over to fiber" and they came over and put in a little fiber terminal and cut the line over. Then a little while later, we got another call "you have a POTS line, we're going to move it over to fiber" and we had to say "hold it right there, smart people. Look at how many lines come into this building. Get us a fiber terminal that can handle all of them."
Every call is now a person-to-person call, something the telco used to charge you extra for.
Over here we get to talk about the technology a bit. I think a lot of people still have that landline because it came as part of a bundle, and it was actually more expensive NOT to have it. That only works until you're also interested in getting rid of the crappy television service, I guess. For me, it took that plus a couple of years plus being off-contract.
But even the telcos are finally retiring POTS, it seems. Here in Verizon land they're now actively moving POTS customers to some variant of FiOS (fiber PON). Over at ione of my data centers, we got a call from Verizon "you have a POTS line, we're going to move it over to fiber" and they came over and put in a little fiber terminal and cut the line over. Then a little while later, we got another call "you have a POTS line, we're going to move it over to fiber" and we had to say "hold it right there, smart people. Look at how many lines come into this building. Get us a fiber terminal that can handle all of them."
As far as 'tech' side. We had another valid reason to keep our land line so long. It worked.
Nothing else did around here, and cell service, good luck. Comcast would go out when the wind blew. We were like 200 feet too far for DSL.. Our lines are overhead, which makes it that much worse.
Comcast bought out our local cable company at one point and service went to hell, starting the first day when they bricked 5000 modems with a forced update.. didnt even check to see what models we had. Got worse from there. i have stories :)
Wed Jul 19 2023 09:26:50 AM EDT from IGnatius T FoobarMeanwhile, over in the Google Overlords room, we've been talking about the disappearance of the landline, that venerable old telephone service that you had to share with everyone else in the household. Over there we were discussing the cultural implications of moving from a service where a telephone number belongs to a *location* to one where a telephone number belongs to a *person*.
Every call is now a person-to-person call, something the telco used to charge you extra for.
Over here we get to talk about the technology a bit. I think a lot of people still have that landline because it came as part of a bundle, and it was actually more expensive NOT to have it. That only works until you're also interested in getting rid of the crappy television service, I guess. For me, it took that plus a couple of years plus being off-contract.
But even the telcos are finally retiring POTS, it seems. Here in Verizon land they're now actively moving POTS customers to some variant of FiOS (fiber PON). Over at ione of my data centers, we got a call from Verizon "you have a POTS line, we're going to move it over to fiber" and they came over and put in a little fiber terminal and cut the line over. Then a little while later, we got another call "you have a POTS line, we're going to move it over to fiber" and we had to say "hold it right there, smart people. Look at how many lines come into this building. Get us a fiber terminal that can handle all of them."
I wasn't able to finish my previous ramble because I had to join a meeting, but ... it is true that POTS has a tendency to stay up and running when other services are out, and it doesn't require any local power. I do have to say, our fiber service with Verizon has been rock solid, and I've had it for 14 years with no extended outages and probably 1 or 2 mini-outages (probably maintenance related). I attribute this to the P in PON: *Passive*. PON requires no midspan power, so as long as there's power at the CO and power to your fiber terminal, the service is up and running. Contrast with HFC, which goes out when the node loses power; they have batteries in them but those only last for so long ... plus the node itself can fail.
While a lot of cable companies have seen the light and are switching to fiber PON, Comcast seems to be doubling down on HFC. This seems like a bad move unless they intend to focus on markets where they're the only option.
As I've mentioned here before, Verizon previously had to supply a battery backup because their voice feature was regulated as a telephone service, but then they changed the protocol from ATM to IP internally and it got magically reclassified as VoIP and therefore exempt from the regulations. Now they supply a fiber terminal that is MUCH smaller, about the same size as a cable modem. There are even fiber terminals (ONTs) that are crammed into an SFP module now! Verizon doesn't support those but some fiber providers do. That would be cool, to simply plug the fiber directly into whatever router you are using.
But I think the days of expecting your landline telephone to work during a power outage are ending and will soon be forgotten, because even for those who are keeping their landlines, POTS is going away.
Frankly, I think it's time for voice telephone service to become completely deregulated because it isn't relevant anymore.
The switch i got recently has one of those fancy "socketed up-links'. i went for copper of course, but they had fiber options. Tho i doubt it would work with the ISP.
I do have a battery on my modem, but last time we lost stuff was due to lines being down, so unsure if it would have still worked or not. Or for how long, if they are using batteries on the other end. Losing the modem ( voip ) and having no cell signal ( just in general no signal, forget the tornado event this spring where we lost everything, for days ), is not a good feeling. No way to call for help.
By "socketed uplinks" do you mean an SFP slot? Yes, those are available in
copper (RJ45 adapter) and all kinds of fiber. They are also available as
a "direct attach" assembly that is basically a twinax cable with the SFP connector
attached to both sides -- very popular in 10 Gbps and higher installations.
But a "regular" fiber SFP module won't work with fiber optic Internet service, which is almost always PON. You need an Optical Network Terminal (ONT) which does two things:
1. It multiplexes the transmit (1310 nm) and receive (1490 nm) wavelengths onto the same fiber
2. Picks out the received frames intended for your unit, and transmits frames during your assigned time slot
You'd be correct in guessing that the size of an ONT has become quite smaller over the last 20 or so years of service! In fact, there *is* an ONT that is so small it fits into an SFP slot. So it's definitely possible to have fiber internet plug directly into your switch or router. The catch? Your ISP has to be willing to support it, because every ONT has a burned-in address, just like a cable modem does, and the ISP has to provision their system to enable it.
Most fiber ISPs will insist that you use their ONT. You can use any router you want, but the fiber terminal must be theirs. They have neither the knowledge nor the willingness to figure out how to support some weird module you bought online. And it's reasonable for them to do that, because the wrong equipment can jam the wavelength and knock out the other 63 subscribers sharing your strand.
In the future, bringing your own ONT may become as commonplace as bringing your own cable modem. But for now, it isn't.
But a "regular" fiber SFP module won't work with fiber optic Internet service, which is almost always PON. You need an Optical Network Terminal (ONT) which does two things:
1. It multiplexes the transmit (1310 nm) and receive (1490 nm) wavelengths onto the same fiber
2. Picks out the received frames intended for your unit, and transmits frames during your assigned time slot
You'd be correct in guessing that the size of an ONT has become quite smaller over the last 20 or so years of service! In fact, there *is* an ONT that is so small it fits into an SFP slot. So it's definitely possible to have fiber internet plug directly into your switch or router. The catch? Your ISP has to be willing to support it, because every ONT has a burned-in address, just like a cable modem does, and the ISP has to provision their system to enable it.
Most fiber ISPs will insist that you use their ONT. You can use any router you want, but the fiber terminal must be theirs. They have neither the knowledge nor the willingness to figure out how to support some weird module you bought online. And it's reasonable for them to do that, because the wrong equipment can jam the wavelength and knock out the other 63 subscribers sharing your strand.
In the future, bringing your own ONT may become as commonplace as bringing your own cable modem. But for now, it isn't.
Yes, SFP. Wasn't sure the term, i have been out of the networking world so long i dont keep up with it.
Some newer fiber systems don't use time-delay signalling. They have 128 customers on the same fiber using 128 different frequencies, full-duplex mode. These are not always compawtible with older TDS systems.