Future of the IPv6 CPE survey on RIPE Labs - Your Input Needed
[apologies for duplicates] Hello, Based on new information we received since the last publication, we updated the IPv6 CPE matrix: http://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/ipv6-cpe-survey-updated-january-2011 In order to make this information more useful for a large user base, we are preparing a detailed survey to gather more structural feedback about the range of equipment that is currently in use. Not only would we like you to participate in this survey, but we also ask for your help in identifying the right survey questions. Please find a call for input on RIPE Labs: http://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco/future-of-the-ipv6-cpe-survey-more-input-... Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne & Marco Hogewoning RIPE NCC
What about an Airport Extreme? It has a wan interface that does PPPOE The IPv6 feature seems working, with 6to4 or static tunnels and a basic IPv6 firewall. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mirjam Kuehne" <mir@ripe.net> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, 25 January, 2011 3:34:14 AM Subject: Future of the IPv6 CPE survey on RIPE Labs - Your Input Needed [apologies for duplicates] Hello, Based on new information we received since the last publication, we updated the IPv6 CPE matrix: http://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/ipv6-cpe-survey-updated-january-2011 In order to make this information more useful for a large user base, we are preparing a detailed survey to gather more structural feedback about the range of equipment that is currently in use. Not only would we like you to participate in this survey, but we also ask for your help in identifying the right survey questions. Please find a call for input on RIPE Labs: http://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco/future-of-the-ipv6-cpe-survey-more-input-... Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne & Marco Hogewoning RIPE NCC
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Franck Martin wrote:
What about an Airport Extreme? It has a wan interface that does PPPOE
The IPv6 feature seems working, with 6to4 or static tunnels and a basic IPv6 firewall.
Yes it is. I already reported to Marco. http://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco/content-ipv6-cpe-survey It should be included somehow in a matrix But 6to4 (or other tunneling techniques) is only a substitute of real IPv6. Regards, Janos Mohacsi
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mirjam Kuehne" <mir@ripe.net> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, 25 January, 2011 3:34:14 AM Subject: Future of the IPv6 CPE survey on RIPE Labs - Your Input Needed
[apologies for duplicates]
Hello,
Based on new information we received since the last publication, we updated the IPv6 CPE matrix:
http://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/ipv6-cpe-survey-updated-january-2011
In order to make this information more useful for a large user base, we are preparing a detailed survey to gather more structural feedback about the range of equipment that is currently in use. Not only would we like you to participate in this survey, but we also ask for your help in identifying the right survey questions. Please find a call for input on RIPE Labs:
http://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco/future-of-the-ipv6-cpe-survey-more-input-...
Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne & Marco Hogewoning RIPE NCC
Hi, Maybe a bit more to explain. Up to now I asked the vendors to provide certain information before adding a box to the matrix. Apple was send a copy but they never responded. In future we are going to build the matrix upon user supplied data. See the article on the future of this work at http://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco/future-of-the-ipv6-cpe-survey-more-input-.... What we'll probably do is include everything for which there is a minimum number of responses like 5 or 10. Actual number to be decided upon once this is rolling and we can figure out the relevant number is. Grtx, Marco On Jan 26, 2011, at 8:01 AM, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Franck Martin wrote:
What about an Airport Extreme? It has a wan interface that does PPPOE
The IPv6 feature seems working, with 6to4 or static tunnels and a basic IPv6 firewall.
Yes it is. I already reported to Marco. http://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco/content-ipv6-cpe-survey
It should be included somehow in a matrix But 6to4 (or other tunneling techniques) is only a substitute of real IPv6.
Regards, Janos Mohacsi
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mirjam Kuehne" <mir@ripe.net> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, 25 January, 2011 3:34:14 AM Subject: Future of the IPv6 CPE survey on RIPE Labs - Your Input Needed
[apologies for duplicates]
Hello,
Based on new information we received since the last publication, we updated the IPv6 CPE matrix:
http://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/ipv6-cpe-survey-updated-january-2011
In order to make this information more useful for a large user base, we are preparing a detailed survey to gather more structural feedback about the range of equipment that is currently in use. Not only would we like you to participate in this survey, but we also ask for your help in identifying the right survey questions. Please find a call for input on RIPE Labs:
http://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco/future-of-the-ipv6-cpe-survey-more-input-...
Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne & Marco Hogewoning RIPE NCC
It works for routing native IPv6 under some circumstances as well. Owen On Jan 26, 2011, at 12:01 AM, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Franck Martin wrote:
What about an Airport Extreme? It has a wan interface that does PPPOE
The IPv6 feature seems working, with 6to4 or static tunnels and a basic IPv6 firewall.
Yes it is. I already reported to Marco. http://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco/content-ipv6-cpe-survey
It should be included somehow in a matrix But 6to4 (or other tunneling techniques) is only a substitute of real IPv6.
Regards, Janos Mohacsi
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mirjam Kuehne" <mir@ripe.net> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, 25 January, 2011 3:34:14 AM Subject: Future of the IPv6 CPE survey on RIPE Labs - Your Input Needed
[apologies for duplicates]
Hello,
Based on new information we received since the last publication, we updated the IPv6 CPE matrix:
http://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/ipv6-cpe-survey-updated-january-2011
In order to make this information more useful for a large user base, we are preparing a detailed survey to gather more structural feedback about the range of equipment that is currently in use. Not only would we like you to participate in this survey, but we also ask for your help in identifying the right survey questions. Please find a call for input on RIPE Labs:
http://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco/future-of-the-ipv6-cpe-survey-more-input-...
Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne & Marco Hogewoning RIPE NCC
Could you elaborate? Which circumstances? On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
It works for routing native IPv6 under some circumstances as well.
Owen
On Jan 26, 2011, at 12:01 AM, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Franck Martin wrote:
What about an Airport Extreme? It has a wan interface that does PPPOE
The IPv6 feature seems working, with 6to4 or static tunnels and a basic IPv6 firewall.
Yes it is. I already reported to Marco. http://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco/content-ipv6-cpe-survey
It should be included somehow in a matrix But 6to4 (or other tunneling techniques) is only a substitute of real IPv6.
Regards, Janos Mohacsi
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mirjam Kuehne" <mir@ripe.net> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, 25 January, 2011 3:34:14 AM Subject: Future of the IPv6 CPE survey on RIPE Labs - Your Input Needed
[apologies for duplicates]
Hello,
Based on new information we received since the last publication, we updated the IPv6 CPE matrix:
http://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/ipv6-cpe-survey-updated-january-2011
In order to make this information more useful for a large user base, we are preparing a detailed survey to gather more structural feedback about the range of equipment that is currently in use. Not only would we like you to participate in this survey, but we also ask for your help in identifying the right survey questions. Please find a call for input on RIPE Labs:
http://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco/future-of-the-ipv6-cpe-survey-more-input-...
Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne & Marco Hogewoning RIPE NCC
I haven't done exhaustive testing, but, it has to do with certain combinations of IPv4 configurations and IPv6 routing do work and other combinations don't. Owen On Jan 26, 2011, at 4:41 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
Could you elaborate? Which circumstances?
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
It works for routing native IPv6 under some circumstances as well.
Owen
On Jan 26, 2011, at 12:01 AM, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Franck Martin wrote:
What about an Airport Extreme? It has a wan interface that does PPPOE
The IPv6 feature seems working, with 6to4 or static tunnels and a basic IPv6 firewall.
Yes it is. I already reported to Marco. http://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco/content-ipv6-cpe-survey
It should be included somehow in a matrix But 6to4 (or other tunneling techniques) is only a substitute of real IPv6.
Regards, Janos Mohacsi
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mirjam Kuehne" <mir@ripe.net> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, 25 January, 2011 3:34:14 AM Subject: Future of the IPv6 CPE survey on RIPE Labs - Your Input Needed
[apologies for duplicates]
Hello,
Based on new information we received since the last publication, we updated the IPv6 CPE matrix:
http://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/ipv6-cpe-survey-updated-january-2011
In order to make this information more useful for a large user base, we are preparing a detailed survey to gather more structural feedback about the range of equipment that is currently in use. Not only would we like you to participate in this survey, but we also ask for your help in identifying the right survey questions. Please find a call for input on RIPE Labs:
http://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco/future-of-the-ipv6-cpe-survey-more-input-...
Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne & Marco Hogewoning RIPE NCC
I believe it has to do with IPv6 mechanisms for handling native addressing. I haven't had the opportunity to test it myself, but from dealing with other vendors, I find that they all support subsets of possible configurations. For example, we test the following with each CPE device which supports IPv6 and is up for consideration. 1) 6to4 support 2) SLAAC + DHCPv6-PD on bridging wan (haven't found one yet, and I believe still the only setup for IOS) 3) DHCPv6 IA_TA requests + DHCPv6-PD (too bad IOS SR doesn't support this yet?) 4) Support of RA to determine default route (seen many require manual gateway configurations since DHCPv6 won't send a default router option) 5) PPPoE/A with above combinations 6) PPPoE/A unnumbered ptp + DHCPv6-PD 7) /60 and /48 DHCPv6-PD and how they are assigned by the CPE 8) DHCPv6 IA_TA, SLAAC, and DHCPv6-PD support on the device's LAN and determining the mechanism it uses 9) Default stateful firewall rules for IPv6. 10) Support for static assignments and routing for IPv6 (many devices are still working on dynamic support and have no manual support) I've yet to find a consumer grade product which meets all of these different configurations; especially in the $50 range. Jack On 1/26/2011 11:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I haven't done exhaustive testing, but, it has to do with certain combinations of IPv4 configurations and IPv6 routing do work and other combinations don't.
Owen
On Jan 26, 2011, at 4:41 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
Could you elaborate? Which circumstances?
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Owen DeLong<owen@delong.com> wrote:
It works for routing native IPv6 under some circumstances as well.
Owen
On Jan 26, 2011, at 12:01 AM, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Franck Martin wrote:
What about an Airport Extreme? It has a wan interface that does PPPOE
The IPv6 feature seems working, with 6to4 or static tunnels and a basic IPv6 firewall.
Yes it is. I already reported to Marco. http://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco/content-ipv6-cpe-survey
It should be included somehow in a matrix But 6to4 (or other tunneling techniques) is only a substitute of real IPv6.
Regards, Janos Mohacsi
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mirjam Kuehne"<mir@ripe.net> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, 25 January, 2011 3:34:14 AM Subject: Future of the IPv6 CPE survey on RIPE Labs - Your Input Needed
[apologies for duplicates]
Hello,
Based on new information we received since the last publication, we updated the IPv6 CPE matrix:
http://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/ipv6-cpe-survey-updated-january-2011
In order to make this information more useful for a large user base, we are preparing a detailed survey to gather more structural feedback about the range of equipment that is currently in use. Not only would we like you to participate in this survey, but we also ask for your help in identifying the right survey questions. Please find a call for input on RIPE Labs:
http://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco/future-of-the-ipv6-cpe-survey-more-input-...
Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne& Marco Hogewoning RIPE NCC
I haven't done exhaustive testing, but, it has to do with certain combinations of IPv4 configurations and IPv6 routing do work and other combinations don't.
Owen
On Jan 26, 2011, at 4:41 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
Could you elaborate? Which circumstances?
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Owen DeLong<owen@delong.com> wrote:
It works for routing native IPv6 under some circumstances as well.
Owen
On Jan 26, 2011, at 12:01 AM, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Franck Martin wrote:
What about an Airport Extreme? It has a wan interface that does PPPOE
The IPv6 feature seems working, with 6to4 or static tunnels and a
basic IPv6 firewall.
Yes it is. I already reported to Marco. http://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco/content-ipv6-cpe-survey
It should be included somehow in a matrix But 6to4 (or other tunneling
techniques) is only a substitute of real IPv6.
Regards, Janos Mohacsi
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mirjam Kuehne"<mir@ripe.net> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, 25 January, 2011 3:34:14 AM Subject: Future of the IPv6 CPE survey on RIPE Labs - Your Input
Needed
[apologies for duplicates]
Hello,
Based on new information we received since the last publication, we updated the IPv6 CPE matrix:
http://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/ipv6-cpe-survey-updated-january-2011
In order to make this information more useful for a large user base,
we
are preparing a detailed survey to gather more structural feedback about the range of equipment that is currently in use. Not only would we
Have you looked at D-Link's DIR-825? It has most of the things you're looking for. The DIR-655 is a more affordable option. In regards to (2), is it even possible to do DHCPv6-PD on with a SLAAC WAN? In regards to (3), I have that working on SRE, but with an external DHCP server. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Jack Bates [mailto:jbates@brightok.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 11:59 AM To: Owen DeLong Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Future of the IPv6 CPE survey on RIPE Labs - Your Input Needed I believe it has to do with IPv6 mechanisms for handling native addressing. I haven't had the opportunity to test it myself, but from dealing with other vendors, I find that they all support subsets of possible configurations. For example, we test the following with each CPE device which supports IPv6 and is up for consideration. 1) 6to4 support 2) SLAAC + DHCPv6-PD on bridging wan (haven't found one yet, and I believe still the only setup for IOS) 3) DHCPv6 IA_TA requests + DHCPv6-PD (too bad IOS SR doesn't support this yet?) 4) Support of RA to determine default route (seen many require manual gateway configurations since DHCPv6 won't send a default router option) 5) PPPoE/A with above combinations 6) PPPoE/A unnumbered ptp + DHCPv6-PD 7) /60 and /48 DHCPv6-PD and how they are assigned by the CPE 8) DHCPv6 IA_TA, SLAAC, and DHCPv6-PD support on the device's LAN and determining the mechanism it uses 9) Default stateful firewall rules for IPv6. 10) Support for static assignments and routing for IPv6 (many devices are still working on dynamic support and have no manual support) I've yet to find a consumer grade product which meets all of these different configurations; especially in the $50 range. Jack On 1/26/2011 11:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: like
you to participate in this survey, but we also ask for your help in identifying the right survey questions. Please find a call for input on RIPE Labs:
http://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco/future-of-the-ipv6-cpe-survey-more-input- needed
Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne& Marco Hogewoning RIPE NCC
On 1/27/2011 12:57 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
Have you looked at D-Link's DIR-825? It has most of the things you're looking for. The DIR-655 is a more affordable option.
Haven't had the chance to look at that one. Will check it out.
In regards to (2), is it even possible to do DHCPv6-PD on with a SLAAC WAN?
It had better be, as IOS 12.2 SRE only supports SLAAC + DHCPv6-PD. Most of the Cisco documentation I've seen, says that is their beautiful layout. No more proxyarp/nd. Instead, assign a /64 to each subinterface, perform SLAAC, then hand out prefixes via DHCPv6-PD if someone needs a prefix.
In regards to (3), I have that working on SRE, but with an external DHCP server.
Yeah, I could see the forwarding code supporting it. Cisco documentation stated proxynd with rbe/unnumbered vlans isn't what they support. How did your tests go mirroring the v4 method using dhcp forwarding with the v6 method? Jack
On 27/01/11 08:17 -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
On 1/27/2011 12:57 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
Have you looked at D-Link's DIR-825? It has most of the things you're looking for. The DIR-655 is a more affordable option.
Haven't had the chance to look at that one. Will check it out.
In regards to (2), is it even possible to do DHCPv6-PD on with a SLAAC WAN?
It had better be, as IOS 12.2 SRE only supports SLAAC + DHCPv6-PD. Most of the Cisco documentation I've seen, says that is their beautiful layout. No more proxyarp/nd. Instead, assign a /64 to each subinterface, perform SLAAC, then hand out prefixes via DHCPv6-PD if someone needs a prefix.
The DIR-825(Rev B) running firmware 2.05NA does. From the status screen: IPv6 Connection Type : Autoconfiguration (SLAAC/DHCPv6) Network Status : Connected WAN IPv6 Address : 2610:b8:0:234:218:e7ff:fef8:66dc/64 IPv6 Default Gateway : fe80::c67d:4fff:fed6:5401 LAN IPv6 Address : 2610:b8:100f:1:218:e7ff:fef8:66db/64 LAN IPv6 Link-Local Address : fe80::218:e7ff:fef8:66db/64 Primary IPv6 DNS Server : 2610:b8:0:3:215:c5ff:fef3:f9c8 Secondary IPv6 DNS Server : 2610:b8:0:3:215:c5ff:feee:9448 DHCP-PD : Enabled IPv6 network assigned by DHCP-PD : 2610:b8:100f::/48 The latest firmware has fairly good support, but is lacking configurable v6 firewall settings. I haven't done any firewall testing yet, but I'd imagine all incoming v6 connections are blocked. The Emulator hasn't been updated yet to reflect the options in the new firmware, but this should give you an idea of what the configuration looks like: http://www.support.dlink.com/emulators/dir825_revB/203NA/adv_link_local.html The DIR-615 should have similar support, but I haven't upgraded it yet. We're also evaluating a Netgear NWR3500U, which also has v6 support. However, it has the problem that whatever subnet mask is assigned via DHCP-PD is assign on the LAN (so the LAN gets a /48 instead of a /64). Anybody found a work around for that, or have a contact at Netgear? -- Dan White
On 1/27/2011 9:25 AM, Dan White wrote:
The DIR-825(Rev B) running firmware 2.05NA does. From the status screen:
IPv6 Connection Type : Autoconfiguration (SLAAC/DHCPv6)
Nice. New love for D-Link then. I've had DSL modem vendors sending me their IPv6 stuff. It's been horrid. Luckily, most of my network is bridged and it's only what the customer buys that is a problem. A bit pricey, but any good router usually is. Jack
Agreed, the DSL stuff is horrid. When using PPPoE it asks me to enter the default IPv6 gateway. You got to be kidding me. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Jack Bates [mailto:jbates@brightok.net] Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 9:34 AM To: Dan White Cc: frnkblk@iname.com; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Future of the IPv6 CPE survey on RIPE Labs - Your Input Needed On 1/27/2011 9:25 AM, Dan White wrote:
The DIR-825(Rev B) running firmware 2.05NA does. From the status screen:
IPv6 Connection Type : Autoconfiguration (SLAAC/DHCPv6)
Nice. New love for D-Link then. I've had DSL modem vendors sending me their IPv6 stuff. It's been horrid. Luckily, most of my network is bridged and it's only what the customer buys that is a problem. A bit pricey, but any good router usually is. Jack
On 1/27/11 7:33 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 1/27/2011 9:25 AM, Dan White wrote:
The DIR-825(Rev B) running firmware 2.05NA does. From the status screen:
IPv6 Connection Type : Autoconfiguration (SLAAC/DHCPv6)
Nice. New love for D-Link then. I've had DSL modem vendors sending me their IPv6 stuff. It's been horrid. Luckily, most of my network is bridged and it's only what the customer buys that is a problem.
A bit pricey, but any good router usually is.
For $129 it's epic. And the scary part is it was released in 2009.
Jack
On 01/27/2011 12:46 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On 1/27/11 7:33 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 1/27/2011 9:25 AM, Dan White wrote:
The DIR-825(Rev B) running firmware 2.05NA does. From the status screen:
IPv6 Connection Type : Autoconfiguration (SLAAC/DHCPv6)
Nice. New love for D-Link then. I've had DSL modem vendors sending me their IPv6 stuff. It's been horrid. Luckily, most of my network is bridged and it's only what the customer buys that is a problem.
A bit pricey, but any good router usually is.
For $129 it's epic. And the scary part is it was released in 2009.
For god's sake, stay away from the DIR-825(Rev A), which has been effectively abandoned by DLINK support and has no IPv6 support at all. This has left a bad taste in my mouth. It has an entirely different processor in it. The RevB replaced the RevA over a year ago, but it's worth checking. Unfortunately, my Rev B was blown up by lightning. Dunno if it is being supported by DLINK any better. - Jim
On 1/27/11 10:01 AM, Jim Gettys wrote:
For god's sake, stay away from the DIR-825(Rev A), which has been effectively abandoned by DLINK support and has no IPv6 support at all.
pretty sure you can't find those on the shelf... The current model I bought on a lark for someone for christmas 2009 and have subsequently purchased several more, and not just becasue of the ipv6 support.
This has left a bad taste in my mouth. It has an entirely different processor in it. The RevB replaced the RevA over a year ago, but it's worth checking.
Unfortunately, my Rev B was blown up by lightning. Dunno if it is being supported by DLINK any better. - Jim
I don't know what I was thinking last night, but I believe I had SLAAC + DHCPv6-PD working myself, but wasn't satisfied. =) I'm not comfortable using SLAAC for WAN addresses in a service provider environment. I do DHCPv4 relay today. DHCPv6 relay worked perfectly on an PVI, but with a SVI with it was very much hit and miss, such that now CSCtl77398 has been created. Enabling "ipv6 multicast-routing" has dramatically improved the success of DHCPv6 relay. So while the bug is not fixed, it's good enough that I can continue with preparing for a trial. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Jack Bates [mailto:jbates@brightok.net] Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 8:18 AM To: frnkblk@iname.com Cc: Owen DeLong; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Future of the IPv6 CPE survey on RIPE Labs - Your Input Needed On 1/27/2011 12:57 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
Have you looked at D-Link's DIR-825? It has most of the things you're looking for. The DIR-655 is a more affordable option.
Haven't had the chance to look at that one. Will check it out.
In regards to (2), is it even possible to do DHCPv6-PD on with a SLAAC WAN?
It had better be, as IOS 12.2 SRE only supports SLAAC + DHCPv6-PD. Most of the Cisco documentation I've seen, says that is their beautiful layout. No more proxyarp/nd. Instead, assign a /64 to each subinterface, perform SLAAC, then hand out prefixes via DHCPv6-PD if someone needs a prefix.
In regards to (3), I have that working on SRE, but with an external DHCP server.
Yeah, I could see the forwarding code supporting it. Cisco documentation stated proxynd with rbe/unnumbered vlans isn't what they support. How did your tests go mirroring the v4 method using dhcp forwarding with the v6 method? Jack
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Richard Barnes wrote:
Could you elaborate? Which circumstances?
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
It works for routing native IPv6 under some circumstances as well.
If the broadband service is provided with bridged mode (i.e. If your router gets IPv4 via DHCP). As written PPPoE with IPv6 is not supported. Regards, Janos Mohacsi
Owen
On Jan 26, 2011, at 12:01 AM, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2011, Franck Martin wrote:
What about an Airport Extreme? It has a wan interface that does PPPOE
The IPv6 feature seems working, with 6to4 or static tunnels and a basic IPv6 firewall.
Yes it is. I already reported to Marco. http://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco/content-ipv6-cpe-survey
It should be included somehow in a matrix But 6to4 (or other tunneling techniques) is only a substitute of real IPv6.
Regards, Janos Mohacsi
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mirjam Kuehne" <mir@ripe.net> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, 25 January, 2011 3:34:14 AM Subject: Future of the IPv6 CPE survey on RIPE Labs - Your Input Needed
[apologies for duplicates]
Hello,
Based on new information we received since the last publication, we updated the IPv6 CPE matrix:
http://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/ipv6-cpe-survey-updated-january-2011
In order to make this information more useful for a large user base, we are preparing a detailed survey to gather more structural feedback about the range of equipment that is currently in use. Not only would we like you to participate in this survey, but we also ask for your help in identifying the right survey questions. Please find a call for input on RIPE Labs:
http://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco/future-of-the-ipv6-cpe-survey-more-input-...
Kind Regards, Mirjam Kuehne & Marco Hogewoning RIPE NCC
participants (11)
-
Dan White -
Franck Martin -
Frank Bulk -
Jack Bates -
Jim Gettys -
Joel Jaeggli -
Marco Hogewoning -
Mirjam Kuehne -
Mohacsi Janos -
Owen DeLong -
Richard Barnes