Cable upgrade

Discussion in 'Broadband' started by Optimist, Jul 14, 2015.

  1. I've just heard a talk from out IT guys. We were running out of
    addresses in the 10.x.x.x range, and they costed IPV6.

    About a billion dollars to replace all the routers worldwide...

    Andy
     
    Vir Campestris, Jul 16, 2015
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Optimist

    Stephen Guest

    Any manufacturer wanting to sell a router to the US govmint or
    european public funded bodies has had to have IPv6 available on the
    kit or a set of promises around making it work on the kit for at least
    10 years.

    So the 1st question is - do you need to upgrade them really?

    Maybe if they are pushing the boxes to the limit then a performance
    hit will be a problem, but that means you are already have very little
    headroom....

    FWIW this is actually an improvement - before that the mantra was
    "must run OSI CLNS or CONS"......
    Stephen Hope
    Replace xyz with ntl to reply
     
    Stephen, Jul 16, 2015
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. That's another problem with NAT... there's only about 18 million private IP
    addresses. So if you're a big corporation or a big ISP, you can easily
    exceed that. Which means having to segment your intranet into multiple
    overlapping private ranges - which means either double NAT or not having
    complete visibility from one endpoint to another.

    Theo
     
    Theo Markettos, Jul 17, 2015
    #23
  4. Optimist

    Optimist Guest

    Aren't the devices upgradeable?
     
    Optimist, Jul 17, 2015
    #24
  5. Aren't the devices upgradeable?

    Most devices are upgradable, but IPv6 may need more memory, new monitoring
    and backend systems, etc.

    And the rapid traffic increase with streaming video means beefier routers
    are probably needed anyway.

    IPv6 is available now on ADSL2/VDSL2, provided the ISP and your router
    support it. I use Merula, and A&A also support it.

    Not sure how many major ISPs support IPv6, probably a major support issue
    for them, needing a lot of retraining. PlusNet seems to running trials, BT
    retail seems to be trialling at the moment as well according to BBC news
    this week.

    Angus
     
    Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd, Jul 17, 2015
    #25
  6. Optimist

    Optimist Guest

    I cannot switch without ditching 50mbs cable, brilliant for video, so unless I move house I will
    wait for VM to upgrade to IPV6, which they'll be forced to do eventually or lose customers who want
    access to the non-IPV4 part of the internet.
     
    Optimist, Jul 17, 2015
    #26
  7. I suspect the majority of VM customers, like the majority of home
    internet users in general, haven't a clue about any of this, and as
    long as things like Facebook, Youtube, Ebay and Amazon keep working,
    will have no reason to care. Can you imagine any of those taking steps
    that would exclude all IPV4 users? Whatever pressure ISPs receive to
    force them to implement IPV6, it won't come from their customers.

    Rod.
     
    Roderick Stewart, Jul 17, 2015
    #27
  8. Optimist

    Optimist Guest

    You may be right - the internet could fracture, on the one hand an IPV6 network connecting the whole
    world, on the other IPV4 network(s) for entertainment but increasingly cut off from the rest.
     
    Optimist, Jul 17, 2015
    #28
  9. It really depends on the initiative being taken by those with the
    technical knowledge to do it. That won't be home users. They won't
    even know what it is. All modern operating systems are capable of
    handling IPV6 and a steadily increasing number of home routers can
    handle it, so if the ISPs decided to implement it, a great many home
    users would then be on IPV6 without realising it. It seems quite clear
    who needs to make the next move.

    Rod.
     
    Roderick Stewart, Jul 17, 2015
    #29
  10. I cannot switch without ditching 50mbs cable

    I have 152Mb cable and FTTC, but I work from home so one is really the work
    line, my router automatically swaps if one goes down, usually FTTC.

    Angus
     
    Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd, Jul 17, 2015
    #30
  11. I set up a Sixxs tunnel, which 'just worked' with minimal of router
    fiddling. The router did IPv6 firewalling by default (though has no GUI for
    it). 12ms latency from VM to the Sixxs London PoP.

    Unfortunately it works rather too well: the tunnel endpoint is lower
    bandwidth than my 100Mbps local pipe, so that connections that decide to go
    over IPv6 can run slower than native IPv4. But that's it operating 'as
    designed'...

    Theo
     
    Theo Markettos, Jul 17, 2015
    #31
  12. Apparently not.

    The limit was some content-addressable memory used in the addressing
    lookup. There's enough for all the IPV4 addresses - just. But the whole
    point of IPV6 addresses is that they are bigger. A lot bigger.

    Andy
     
    Vir Campestris, Jul 17, 2015
    #32
  13. No. I'm sick of all this bloody Internet of Things hype. I have zero
    interest in connecting my fridge, washing machine or toaster to the
    internet.

    There are swathes of IPV4 address ranges sitting unused, mainly by big
    American corporations who got in early and were assigned allocations far
    larger than they actually needed. They're too greedy to give them up or
    sell them at a reasonable price, which is why we have a shortage now.
     
    Mike Tomlinson, Jul 19, 2015
    #33
  14. Your company has 16 million hosts on its network?
     
    Mike Tomlinson, Jul 19, 2015
    #34
  15. Optimist

    Stephen Guest

    A big chunk of the "unused" addresses are not visible on the Internet
    but still need to be worldwide unique.

    An MPLS core for telco may interconnect to dozens of other carriers.

    Every main node in that set of networks needs at least 1 unique IP,
    and big chunks of the undrlying plumbing need the same for universal
    interconnection. So - they use globally allocated IPv4 addresses.

    There are other setups which have similar issues and where private
    addresses don't work or don't scale because the private ranges and
    re-used.

    regards, Stephen
    Stephen Hope
    Replace xyz with ntl to reply
     
    Stephen, Jul 19, 2015
    #35
  16. Optimist

    Phil W Lee Guest

    Unsurprisingly, some of them are the same corporations that make a lot
    of money selling new equipment to provide IPv6 to people who otherwise
    wouldn't need it.
     
    Phil W Lee, Jul 19, 2015
    #36
  17. No, but it has a lot.

    As an example - there's a subnet for each rack. If there are 20 servers
    in the rack that eats 32 addresses. Then the router in the rack has a
    subnet. If you have 10 racks in the room the room needs 16 subnets. So
    200 servers have eaten 16*32 = 512 addresses. It multiplies up.

    I hope this isn't confidential!

    Andy
     
    Vir Campestris, Jul 19, 2015
    #37
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.