BT IPv6 Roll OutCompleteed

I see BT roll out of IP6 is almost completed, had a look at the settings in my Asus RT-N66U, what settings do I need to configure to take advantage of IPv6.

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2016/11/bt-broa...

I think BT said they will have all their users down with IPv6 by December this year.

Our IPv6 was enabled on the 24th October when we also received the latest firmware update and we didn't need to do anything for it to work.

I think our Smart Hub tries to uses IPv6 first and if that fails then fall back to IPv4.

Paul

Sincerely hope that that your SmartHub is doing dual-stack rather than IPv6 and only offering IPv4 if it cannot get IPv6 connectivity.

Dual stack is the norm for IPv6, since many websites still don't exist in the IPv6 space.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Sincerely hope that that your SmartHub is doing dual-stack rather than IPv6 and only offering IPv4 if it cannot get IPv6 connectivity.

Dual stack is the norm for IPv6, since many websites still don't exist in the IPv6 space.

Well I have never had IPv6 until the 24th October, so I wouldn't know.

*** update ***
Actually your readiness test you have says the following:

This is the most important test. This verifies your browser can connect to a site that has both IPv4 and IPv6 records published. IPv4 only hosts should connect fine (using IPv4).

If this test fails or times out, you can expect major problems as publishers start offering their sites on IPv6.

Results:
Test with Dual Stack DNS record

ok (0.065s) using ipv6

Also the tests done at test-ipv6.com say the following:

Test with IPv4 DNS record			ok (0.026s) using ipv4
Test with IPv6 DNS record			ok (0.037s) using ipv6
Test with Dual Stack DNS record			ok (0.039s) using ipv6
Test for Dual Stack DNS and large packet	ok (0.057s) using ipv6
Test IPv4 without DNS				ok (0.030s) using ipv4
Test IPv6 without DNS				ok (0.037s) using ipv6
Test IPv6 large packet				ok (0.041s) using ipv6
Test if your ISP's DNS server uses IPv6		ok (0.058s) using ipv6
Find IPv4 Service Provider			ok (0.036s) using ipv4 ASN 2856
Find IPv6 Service Provider			ok (0.037s) using ipv6 ASN 2856

So I assume that's what you was referring to and ours is ok?

I now all tests that I do say its Native IPv6, I can see it saing it uses IPv6 by default and then falls back to IPv4.

Image of IPv6 Test Results

I can also see it saying:

Your router or firewall is filtering ICMPv6 messages sent to your computer. An IPv6 host that cannot receive ICMP messages may encounter problems like some web pages loading partially or not at all.

So if that becomes an issue I will just switch over to my FRITZ!Box and use that in WAN Mode.

Paul

Okay they are doing things as expected, very very rare to find a solution where the CPE only has IPv6 available - just wanted to double check you did not mean BT was doing that.

Off-topic, but a bit of dodgy advice here on the Test Summary page:

Mac OS X: You are running version 10.11.6; we recommend 10.6.7 or newer.

I wonder when third-party routers will be able to detect a native IPv6 address. Currently using a Netgear router in 6to4 translation mode as the router can't detect any IPv6 address being handed out to it. Router is is also set to auto detect and auto config it's IPv6 settings, however I wonder if there is more of a configuration details needed.

P.S currently on ADSL BT broadband on BTW 21cn network, though don't think that should make a difference.

Well my FRITZ!Box 3390 supports IPv6 as far as I recall.

The next time our Smart Hub has issues with Wi-Fi or does its 14 day reboot I will try the FRITZ!Box and see.

As for ADSL, not sure, IPv6 was enabled for us on the 24th October and we have only had FTTP since 14th October before then we was on ADSL 2+ for many years.

I do recall when on Zen we was tunnelling IPv6 over IPv4.

Paul

When I was on BT just a couple of weeks ago, I had IPv6 running through OpenWRT by simply using DHCPv6.

No additional settings are required by BT as far as I am aware.

No IPv6 here in Devon with an EA6700 router on BT VDSL

I usea Netgear router too (R 7000) which did not work with IPv6. It is a firmware issue, after much to-ing and fro-ing with Netgear support they eventually sent me a beta firmware which works fine with IPv6 in a proper dual stack way. However even though it is many months since I was sent that beta firmware they have still not incorporated the fix into any standard firmware update. They don't seem to care about IPv6 working properly.

They will most probably just release a new router with IPv6 support and use that as a selling point.

Paul

LOL
All the existing Netgear routers say they are compatible with IPv6 so I can just see the advert now:
"Unlike all our other routers which claim to have IPv6 compatibility this new one actually works!"
Netgear can't be expected to rush into these new fangled things either, after all it is only 18 years since IPv6 was ratified. It seems they also can't be expected to fully test their routers before release!

I don't understand the enthusiasm for IPV6 amongst SMB & residential end users, unless ISP's are going to take responsibility for traffic monitoring, network security (including the 'other' side of CPE) and training, it's a security nightmare just waiting to happen - imagine the average user having to secure their 'built-to-a-price' ISP supplied router and having every device easily and uniquely identifiable on 'the internet'...
Yes, it will be possible to use a 6to4 NAT to maintain a degree of usability on the 'local' network, unless the hidden v6 address space is secured, it will be entirely possible for traffic to breeze in and out of the local network entirely un-noticed...
https://ittrainingsolutions.com/ipv6/move-to-ipv6-br...
https://www.sophos.com/en-us/security-news-trends/se...
http://www.networkworld.com/article/2171504/tech-pri...

In reply to a post by 10forcash:

it's a security nightmare just waiting to happen

BT and Sky have deployed their routers with an IPv6 firewall enabled, which means that IPv6 connections to devices are no less secure than IPv4. In the same way that you must configure port forwarding for a device to listen to the internet on IPv4, it is necessary to configure the IPv6 firewall to allow an incoming connection too.

Working on a friends Infinity 4 under pfSense.

If it's 'as secure' as ISP's IPv4 firewall implementation, then my point you quoted still stands. What you fail to recognise is that with IPv4, it is easy to harvest a devices MAC and NAT'ed IP address, with IPv6, the harvested IP address will be the devices global address, which makes it far easier to target.
I will only allow IPv6 on airgapped (from other internal and all external) systems until all the weaknesses are known and counterable, until then LAN's will remain IPv4 only and border routers will function as '6to4' stacks.
I do look forward to hearing from early adopters experiences though, you are my guinea pigs!

In reply to a post by 10forcash:

it is easy to harvest a devices MAC and NAT'ed IP address, with IPv6, the harvested IP address will be the devices global address, which makes it far easier to target.

IPv6 devices by default use temporary addresses which means they change regularly, minimising the "harvesting" as you call it. But since the incoming connections are firewalled at the router, it's no issue anyway.

They're temporary but predictable - otherwise there would be potential address conflicts globally. ISP router firewalls by default allow all traffic out, so it's perfectly possible (as it is with IPv4) to inject malicious traffic into a genuine response - something a basic firewall cannot protect against. I have yet to see a SPI solution that is fully interoperable with IPv6 traffic in both directions - and I include commercial equipment in that. So all in all, I only see downsides in the current implementation of public IPv6 addressing, IPv4 address space is (or can be) easily securable from layer2 upwards using mature and well understood methods, IPv6 is too immature to be used as a secure, trusted transport mechanism - both for commercial and consumer data, your data might not be worth 'as much' as harvested commercial data, unless it's your data of course, in which case it's invaluable and a PITA to recover and secure after the event.
So why the headlong rush? I fail to see any benefit to the end user.

In reply to a post by 10forcash:

So why the headlong rush?

"Rush"? You're joking, right? IPv6 became a recognised standard almost 18 years ago. The whole industry has been dragging its heels for far too long getting IPv6 implemented, this all should have been sorted long in advance of IPv4 address exhaustion. Thank goodness major UK ISPs are finally taking it seriously.

When, as a broadband user in the UK, am I likely to want to have IPV6?i

Would this be when there are Internet sites mainly in the UK which I am likely to want to contact and which I could not contact using IPV4? If so, when is this expected to happen?

My collection of home IP devices keeps growing but as they are all behind my NAT router they don't consume more public addresses.

It will be when providers are using CGNAT for IPv4 and things like console gaming is not happy with CGNAT, and other activities like VoIP. Likely static IPv4 will remain available but at extra cost, or shift devices to IPv6.

The firewall argument is interesting, as surely people on a LAN are running firewalls on the individual devices too, i.e. to protect themselves from others on their LAN.

Only reliable air gap to hacking is to not be connected to the Internet and only hand type in software updates where someone has reviewed every line of code to ensure nothing untoward will be done to a machine.

In reply to a post by PaulKirby:

I do recall when on Zen we was tunnelling IPv6 over IPv4.

Zen have offered native IPv6 for a while, though I believe you still have to e-mail [email protected] quoting your Zen user name to request it is enabled on your account.

In reply to a post by David_W:

In reply to a post by PaulKirby:

I do recall when on Zen we was tunnelling IPv6 over IPv4.

Zen have offered native IPv6 for a while, though I believe you still have to e-mail [email protected] quoting your Zen user name to request it is enabled on your account.

Is it free or do you have to pay extra?

Paul

In reply to a post by PaulKirby:

In reply to a post by David_W:

In reply to a post by PaulKirby:

I do recall when on Zen we was tunnelling IPv6 over IPv4.

Zen have offered native IPv6 for a while, though I believe you still have to e-mail [email protected] quoting your Zen user name to request it is enabled on your account.

Is it free or do you have to pay extra?

No additional charge. Unless Zen have changed things since I signed up, you get a static /48 for your networks and a static /64 for your router's WAN interface.

In reply to a post by David_W:

No additional charge. Unless Zen have changed things since I signed up, you get a static /48 for your networks and a static /64 for your router's WAN interface.

Ah, ok.
Well my brother has Zen for his FTTC, I know he use to use tunnelling to get IPv6, he might already be aware of them doing native IPv6.

But I might asking just in case.

Paul

All working good here on backup line. (apart from upload being slow on yuor test but no one elses)

Download is fine

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html...