IPv6 Questions

[Bill]

One of the snags with beta firmware is that it tends to have bugs... damn thing won't let me set a static IP on v6

Bug report sent off... and like Steve, a router reboot returns a new WAN IP address. So I've dumped the BQM until I get it sorted.

[Steve]

I did manage to set a static router IP Bill I think, use the Basic interface copy the IPv6 address from status, disconnect and then paste the address into the WAN setup and then click apply. I couldn't get it to stick using the advanced web interface.

[Bill]

I hadn't thought of disconnecting first... but I still can't make it work.

Using the basic WAN interface brings up a "<192.168.1.1> Invalid IP address" error when I press Apply (I've changed it from the default IP to match my other routers, but it still fails if I put it back to 254), with the advanced interface it just doesn't stick.

That's using both Opera and Safari... I'll dig out an old Windows laptop and try it (wired) with IE.

[Bill]

Well that didn't work either, same error from IE8

[Bill]

Sorted

I hope

Seems as though you can't set a manual IPv6 address with an automatic IPv4 address... set them both manually and it works fine.

Good thing IDNet supply static IPs!!!!

[Steve]

Sorry Bill I did set the IPv4 manually as well. 

[Bill]

No problem

It meant I could send off a reasonably comprehensive bug report to Billion. Doesn't worry us of course, but if a customer of an ISP who only used dynamic IP allocation (which I think is most of 'em) wanted to fix their v6 address then they couldn't.

[Steve]

Bill, Did you get the same with the reported netmask changing from 64 to 128 going from automatic to manual?

[Bill]

Yes, I did.

The v4 netmask is now 255.255.255.255, I thought it was 255.255.255.0 before but I can't be sure.

Also changed the iMac to fixed v6 address, the Prefix length (is that the same as netmask ?) stayed at 64. I've no idea if it's right, but it still seems to work

[Steve]

I think it's the IPv6 equivalent so you get more addresses with /48 than /64

[pctech]

Yes, I did.

The v4 netmask is now 255.255.255.255, I thought it was 255.255.255.0 before but I can't be sure.

Also changed the iMac to fixed v6 address, the Prefix length (is that the same as netmask ?) stayed at 64. I've no idea if it's right, but it still seems to work

Prefix length is indeed the same as a netmask which in IPv4 can be written as dotted quad 255.255.255.0 or slash notation (255.255.255.0 would be /24)

I'm fairly certain that a router having a 255.255.255.255 or /32 prefix means it is part of the infrastructure and does not have any end nodes and is pretty much just a pass through.

When I used NAT on my router before I applied for my own allocation it had a 255.255.255.255 or /32 mask.

[Bill]

Simon [on holiday supposedly!] deals with the main routing/peering etc - personally my guess would be that either the packets are taking a different route than the ipv4 packets (a router in the best route between us and them may not be ipv6 enabled and hence a more congested or longer route is taken) or the test stack is not working as well with ipv6.

When Simon comes back, he might like to consider the two IPv6 speed tests attached... it might indicate something about peering!

The first is via thinkbroadband, the second is via here- http://ipv6-test.com/speedtest . I think it's in Roubaix, France.

[pctech]

I thought IDNet already had peering in France? Paris to be exact according to the service status.

All the probably indicates is they don't have a direct route via an Internet Exchange (nearly always the quickest way) to that host?

[Bill]

Afaik, they also peer with NetConnex... ie thinkbroadband.

[Steve]

The Thinkbroadband IPv6 speedtest still doesn't work for me, a bit like the IPv6 BQM.

[Bill]

Have you tried the tbb test?

http://ipv6-speedtest.net/

If it says you're coming in via IPv4 (sometimes does that to me- Apple bug I think), you can force it with

http://ipv6.ipv6-speedtest.net/


Oops, missed your edit

[Steve]

Thanks for the alternative address Bill , same as yours it's pants

Date   19/04/11 18:30:26
Download speed   156.96 Kbps (0.15 Mbps)
Upload speed   675.94 Kbps (0.66 Mbps)
Server Port   8095 (tcp)

[Bill]

I've thought about bringing it up with Seb, but he won't even admit there's a problem with the IPv4 test if you're using FTTC, despite the number of complaints... so I thought I'd see what IDNet have to say, 'cos that's truly abysmal

[Steve]

Well if it's down to peering it must be going a long long way round.

[Bill]

I know less about peering than I do about routing, and I know nothing about routing!

But I'm glad it's not just me getting rubbish results, we need more mugs volunteers to try IPv6.

[Bill]

@ Steve- some interesting graphs on that test page:

http://ipv6-test.com/stats/

[pctech]

I cant really throw stones as am using a Zen connection with a Teredo 6to4 setup (uses the Hurricane Electric Tunnelbroker service and routes the traffic via them so I get 1.84 for IPv4 and 1.61 via IPv6 so my packets are going a long way too.

They are in the process of preparing their network though.

[pctech]

I've thought about bringing it up with Seb, but he won't even admit there's a problem with the IPv4 test if you're using FTTC, despite the number of complaints... so I thought I'd see what IDNet have to say, 'cos that's truly abysmal

He'll probably not believe it until he gets FTTC himself but then again I'm still using the 21CN ADSL Max equivalent just because it works better on my line.

[Steve]

@ Steve- some interesting graphs on that test page:

http://ipv6-test.com/stats/

I guess IPv6 is the 'poor relation' at present for ISPs.

[Bill]

I guess IPv6 is the 'poor relation' at present for ISPs.

And not just ISPs- router manufacturers too, and not excluding Apple

But by the same token, whilst not too many people are using it it's a good time to sort the bugs out of it.