Optional IPv6 or dual stack should now be the normal. Instead it's still a rare occurance.

In reply to a post by kam67:

Hi Fido - yes you are quite right - the thread has morphed. However what really matters to me at least is that there is a happy ending (for now at least! Hopefully I won’t rue the day I declared victory over the various gremlins that have troubled my connection). The packet loss has been correctly diagnosed as a symptom of the router’s response to more than one monitor being active at one time. As you can see it has ceased:

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

Hi K,

All is well that ends well.

I am pleased that it worked out.


Personally, I have never used the Thinkbroadband Broadband Monitor because it needs to allow the router firewall to respond to pings and I have always kept my routers stealthed. - If I use network tools to ping other sites there is zero packet loss.

In reply to a post by Fido:

Hi K,

All is well that ends well.

I am pleased that it worked out.

Thanks, Fido - now fingers crossed that it stays that way!

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

Electromagnetic interference does not effect light. That's 1 of the benefits of fibre.

While this is often stated to be the case it is in reality incorrect. Electromagnetic fields do indeed have an impact on light passing through a fibre optic cable, which is hardly surprising given that light is a form of electromagnetic radiation. In fact it has real world commercial applications.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber-optic_current_se...

However, in the context of a broadband connection, there is no impact as it does not use the polarization of the light in the optical fibre.

In reply to a post by Bryer:

It's a shame all the new Alt-nets are NOT IPv6 from the get go. I know of a few that are still only using IPv4 and have already said they are running out of available addresses.

If I were in charge, I would do two things. First I would make CGNAT illegal unless IPv6 was also offered. Secondly, I would make it so that if any government funding is accepted they must provide IPv6. Problem solved.

In reply to a post by jabuzzard:

In reply to a post by Bryer:

It's a shame all the new Alt-nets are NOT IPv6 from the get go. I know of a few that are still only using IPv4 and have already said they are running out of available addresses.

If I were in charge, I would do two things. First I would make CGNAT illegal unless IPv6 was also offered. Secondly, I would make it so that if any government funding is accepted they must provide IPv6. Problem solved.

Its a tough one, the best chance of any kind of leaning on ISPs is back when we still had IPv4 to allocate in our region, then they could have refused to allocate without IPv6 rollout been done first. Apparently according to someone on here this was attempted but done with loopholes larger than a funnel, so network admins just added IPv6 to one web page or one edge router or something to satisfy it, they didnt have the foresight to require it to the entire network.

Now I think it would have to be ofcom, and something like this would be just a little blip on ofcom's radar.

I can understand the hesitance though, as IPv6 behaviour from device to device varies, its a bit haphazard in its implementation and we even now have Chrome the most used browser in the world not been adherent to IPv6 original RFC standards (ignoring OS prefix policy).

In reply to a post by kam67:

I was under the impression that cease and reprovide did not involve physical changes in the (Openreach?) network - or does it?

It does not. The port on the OLT your fibre is connected to contains the whole PON (up to 30 homes) so there's no chance that's getting changed Willy nilly on a cease and reprovide.

Everything is done virtually. A cease and reprovide involves nothing physical.

Same goes for FTTC.

RobertoS mentions lift and shift which is physically changing the FTTC port.

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

In reply to a post by kam67:

I was under the impression that cease and reprovide did not involve physical changes in the (Openreach?) network - or does it?

It does not. The port on the OLT your fibre is connected to contains the whole PON (up to 30 homes) so there's no chance that's getting changed Willy nilly on a cease and reprovide.

Everything is done virtually. A cease and reprovide involves nothing physical.

Same goes for FTTC.

RobertoS mentions lift and shift which is physically changing the FTTC port.

Ok thanks for that, johhn83.

In any case, it’s done the trick. Let’s hope it stays that way!

Unfortunately had my first loss of connection this evening. Was operating under the perhaps foolish perception that with FTTP, this sort of event would be a thing of the past 🙁 (let’s hope is a flash in the pan, rather than the shape of things to come!)

So the PON light is red?