I reckon it's a case of deciding if IPV6 is something you want or something you need, these are different scenarios. I also seem to recall that you have to ask Zen to enable it at their end, not just at the remote end via the Fritzbox.

From your earlier posts the suspected packet loss is probably not real, as you have not seem any apparent service problems.

In reply to a post by prlzx:

Zen was one of the relatively early adopters of IPv6 among UK ISPs so it can be enabled.
However I don't know what method of address assignment is used (compared with xDSL).
Probably DHCPv6.

I'm surprised because I thought selecting "Zen Internet" in the Fritz!Box Internet > Account would fill in the right details.

I’m surprised too that it’s not enabled by default. Will have to call in and find out if Zen tech support can advise.

IPv6 isn't enabled by default at Zen's end but will be switched on by request at no charge.

To request it, just send an email to [email protected]

In reply to a post by ashdown:

IPv6 isn't enabled by default at Zen's end but will be switched on by request at no charge.

To request it, just send an email to [email protected]

Thanks ashdown - wonder why they need to make it so obscure/complicated? Is it worth doing?

In reply to a post by kam67:

Is it worth doing?

It depends on one's requirements, level of technical interest, etc. It enables multiple services to be run, each on their own IP address, and avoids the rigmarole of "port forwarding". It also largely avoids the noise caused by miscreants trying to break in because the IPv6 address space is so vast that systematic scanning for vulnerabilities isn't really feasible.

An increasing issue is that there are some websites that are IPv6 only, such as https://loopsofzen.uk , although at the glacial speed of IPv6 uptake, it'll take years before this is a major problem.

I guess a better question is why don’t Zen enable pv6 by default?

(By the way, I’m quite aware this is veering way off topic)

Edited by kam67 (Sat 17-Dec-22 22:38:27)

Probably because few of their customers want it.

Arguebly they could publicise it more.

Come on, it's not really going to be an issue for Joe Public, ever. Anyone who wants their websites to be seen is going to keep them available on IPV4, and ISPs will just continue with real IPV4 / CGNAT / etc.

And I think the jury has to be out on security. While it's true that a random internet host / port scan may now be less attractive; the hosts that were found on those public IPs were at least fairly well locked down by now (or totally owned!). Several arguments exist for why deploying IPV6 can lower your network security and I'm not sure the upside outweighs the downside yet...
1) Relative Immaturity of IPV6 stacks and supporting software / appliances
2) lack of understanding of configuration issues
3) IPs of client devices leaked simply by visiting a website
4) (Not so much an issue recently thanks to randomization) embedded MAC addresses enabling host tracking

On my own network - Ubiquiti - I have little faith that IPV6 receives the attention it deserves from the vendor - given a lot of the UI bits don't even show the IPV6 info. So IPV6 will remain turned off here until such point as there is a compelling use case to enable it and I have confidence that it's not opening a security can of worms.

In reply to a post by kam67:

In reply to a post by SteveBen:

It is very likely that you don’t have packet loss. If you did have the amount of packet loss that graph is showing you, your connection would be unusable. Something weird is happening that is causing that behaviour, but if your main gripe at the moment is shonky Wi-Fi performance, then you are barking up the wrong tree.
You can prove this yourself. Plug a computer direct to your router, and continuously ping something for a while. See how many are lost. The graph would suggest 25-30%. From memory on windows you can do ping -t 8.8.8.8 for a continuous ping. I bet you actually see closer to 0.
As for what is causing that… could be your IP has been recycled and someone else had similar monitoring set up that they’ve left on? Could be your router is a little broken in some special way? It’s interesting, but unlikely to cause you any actual issues with your service.

As suspected by myself and many of you, after running an extended ping test while my computer was connected to my router via ethernet, no packet loss was detected. So that’s good news!

To Zen Fault Manager:

“Thanks for getting back to me and I’m increasingly convinced this is a peculiarity of the Fritzbox and how it responds to pings.

Real world performance has been pretty good.

So perhaps you could make sure that the ping you kindly set up is disabled?

Thanks for all your help with this.


Best wishes,

Kamal”


Postscript: As suggested, I ran a ping via Ethernet and the results were near faultless.

Edited by kam67 (Sun 18-Dec-22 12:46:12)

Success!

https://www.thinkbroadband.com/broadband/monitoring/...