• UPC IPv6 speed test

    From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to All on Sat May 10 13:15:08 2014
    Hello All,

    Found this one: http://speedtest-ipv6-1.upc.nl/


    These are my results.

    Last Result:
    Download Speed: 6298 kbps (787.3 KB/sec transfer rate)
    Upload Speed: 2441 kbps (305.1 KB/sec transfer rate)
    Latency: 16 ms
    Jitter: 1 ms
    zaterdag 10 mei 2014 13:13:22


    The download speed is a bit disapointing, considering that I have 30 Mbps om IPv4.



    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Denis Mikhlevich@2:5053/54.100 to Michiel van der Vlist on Sat May 10 16:24:44 2014
    Hello, Michiel van der Vlist.
    On 10.05.14 13:15 you wrote:

    Found this one: http://speedtest-ipv6-1.upc.nl/ These are my
    results.

    OK. In Russia in Saratov city, I have up Speedtest on DualStack. Any user can open a site http://speedtest.net Find count Russia, then city Saratov and select server JSC Volgatranstelecom. If user have IPv6 connectivity, test will do by IPv6.
    Or you can try to Enter http://speed.vtt.net test should do by IPv6. This is speedtest mini.

    --
    Galaxy Nexus, UB4CAR
    --- Hotdoged/2.10/Android
    * Origin: Android device, Milky Way (2:5053/54.100)
  • From Nicholas Boel@1:154/701 to Michiel van der Vlist on Sat May 10 07:42:06 2014
    Hello Michiel,

    On 10 May 14 13:15, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to All:

    Hello All,

    Found this one: http://speedtest-ipv6-1.upc.nl/

    Thanks for the link! Here's my results..

    Last Result:
    Download Speed: 29620 kbps (3702.5 KB/sec transfer rate)
    Upload Speed: 5209 kbps (651.1 KB/sec transfer rate)
    Latency: 110 ms
    Jitter: 2 ms
    Saturday, May 10, 2014 7:39:29 AM

    Looks like it's right on the money, even for being across the pond!

    Regards,
    Nick

    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20130910
    * Origin: Dark Sorrow | darksorrow.us (1:154/701)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Denis Mikhlevich on Sat May 10 15:15:24 2014
    Hello Denis,

    On Saturday May 10 2014 16:24, you wrote to me:

    Found this one: http://speedtest-ipv6-1.upc.nl/ These are my results.

    OK. In Russia in Saratov city, I have up Speedtest on DualStack. Any
    user can open a site http://speedtest.net

    Yes, anyone can, but it is of no use if one does not have "infinite" upload speed.

    Find count Russia, then city Saratov and select server JSC Volgatranstelecom.

    I can't find it....

    If user have IPv6 connectivity, test will do by IPv6.

    Nice.

    Or you can try to Enter http://speed.vtt.net test should do by IPv6.
    This is speedtest mini.

    2.29 Mbps down, 2.02 Mbps up. Obviously what it measutres is the upload speed of your server, not my download speed...


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Markus Reschke@2:240/1661 to Michiel van der Vlist on Sat May 10 15:24:22 2014
    Hi Michiel!

    May 10 13:15 2014, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to All:

    MvdV> Found this one: http://speedtest-ipv6-1.upc.nl/

    That's nice!

    MvdV> The download speed is a bit disapointing, considering that I have
    MvdV> 30 Mbps om IPv4.

    I got nearly the same download speed as for IPv4.

    cu,
    Markus

    ---
    * Origin: *** theca tabellaria *** (2:240/1661)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Nicholas Boel on Sat May 10 15:53:32 2014
    Hello Nicholas,

    On Saturday May 10 2014 07:42, you wrote to me:

    Found this one: http://speedtest-ipv6-1.upc.nl/

    Thanks for the link! Here's my results..

    You'r welcome.

    Last Result:
    Download Speed: 29620 kbps (3702.5 KB/sec transfer rate)
    Upload Speed: 5209 kbps (651.1 KB/sec transfer rate)
    Latency: 110 ms
    Jitter: 2 ms
    Saturday, May 10, 2014 7:39:29 AM

    That looks a lot better than what I get...

    Looks like it's right on the money, even for being across the pond!

    I think the pond is not the bottleneck. The bottleneck is usually in the last mile(s),,,


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Markus Reschke on Sat May 10 15:55:09 2014
    Hello Markus,

    On Saturday May 10 2014 15:24, you wrote to me:


    MvdV>> The download speed is a bit disapointing, considering that I
    MvdV>> have 30 Mbps om IPv4.

    I got nearly the same download speed as for IPv4.

    For native IPv6 that is to be expected.

    For a tunnel one can expect some loss because of overhead. But 75% ??


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Markus Reschke@2:240/1661 to Michiel van der Vlist on Sat May 10 16:19:52 2014
    Hi Michiel!

    May 10 15:55 2014, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Markus Reschke:

    MvdV> For a tunnel one can expect some loss because of overhead. But 75%
    MvdV> ??

    I think that's a fair value for a free service, isn't it?

    cu,
    Markus

    ---
    * Origin: *** theca tabellaria *** (2:240/1661)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Markus Reschke on Sat May 10 16:36:41 2014
    Hello Markus,

    On Saturday May 10 2014 16:19, you wrote to me:

    MvdV>> For a tunnel one can expect some loss because of overhead. But
    MvdV>> 75% ??

    I think that's a fair value for a free service, isn't it?

    True and I am not complaining. I just wonder where the bottleneck is. It is not a given that it is the tunnel provider. It could be something on my end...


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Nicholas Boel@1:154/701 to Michiel van der Vlist on Sat May 10 10:15:22 2014
    Hello Michiel,

    On 10 May 14 16:36, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Markus Reschke:

    MvdV>>> For a tunnel one can expect some loss because of overhead. But
    MvdV>>> 75% ??

    I think that's a fair value for a free service, isn't it?

    True and I am not complaining. I just wonder where the bottleneck is.
    It is not a given that it is the tunnel provider. It could be
    something on my end...

    Possibly using XP (which doesn't fully support it) or your WRT54GL that didn't originally support it until you flashed it with new firmware? Just wondering if
    it may be a hardware/software thing that was never really intended to support IPV6.

    My test here was done from my Windows 7 machine with an Asus-AC68R router using
    Merlin's firmware (which includes a built in IPV6 firewall, I believe, over the
    stock firmware that indeed supports IPV6, but unless Asus accepted those modifications by Merlin, never originally or currently includes an IPV6 firewall).

    Regards,
    Nick

    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20130910
    * Origin: Dark Sorrow | darksorrow.us (1:154/701)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Michiel van der Vlist on Sat May 10 17:57:35 2014
    Hi,

    On 2014-05-10 15:53:32, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Nicholas Boel:
    about: "UPC IPv6 speed test":

    Last Result:
    Download Speed: 29620 kbps (3702.5 KB/sec transfer rate)
    Upload Speed: 5209 kbps (651.1 KB/sec transfer rate)
    Latency: 110 ms
    Jitter: 2 ms
    Saturday, May 10, 2014 7:39:29 AM

    MvdV> That looks a lot better than what I get...

    Looks like it's right on the money, even for being across the pond!

    MvdV> I think the pond is not the bottleneck. The bottleneck is usually in the
    MvdV> last mile(s),,,

    The latency is much bigger than yours though!

    Bye, Wilfred.


    --- FMail-W32-1.68.2.63-B20140508
    * Origin: Native IPv6 connectable node (2:280/464)
  • From Nicholas Boel@1:154/701 to Wilfred van Velzen on Sat May 10 13:20:41 2014
    Hello Wilfred,

    On 10 May 14 17:57, Wilfred van Velzen wrote to Michiel van der Vlist:

    The latency is much bigger than yours though!

    In computer speak, that's quite true. But if you can even blink your eyes in 110ms that would be impressive. So I can't really say it's all that bad. :)

    Regards,
    Nick

    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20130910
    * Origin: Dark Sorrow | darksorrow.us (1:154/701)
  • From Denis Mikhlevich@2:5053/400 to Michiel van der Vlist on Sat May 10 22:43:22 2014
    10.05.14, 15:15, Michiel van der Vlist пишет:

    Yes, anyone can, but it is of no use if one does not have "infinite" upload speed.

    Find count Russia, then city Saratov and select server JSC Volgatranstelecom.

    I can't find it....


    I've done screen shot https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17838968/Speedtest_Saratov_Russian.png

    If user have IPv6 connectivity, test will do by IPv6.

    Nice.

    Or you can try to Enter http://speed.vtt.net test should do by IPv6. This is speedtest mini.

    2.29 Mbps down, 2.02 Mbps up. Obviously what it measutres is the upload speed of your
    server, not my download speed...



    So, the speed is slow, I think because, big distance beetween you and
    server and the effect is TCP window, which depends on round trip latency.


    --
    With best regards, Denis Mikhlevich, 2:5053/54 aka 2:5053/400
    --- FIDOGATE 5.1.7ds
    * Origin: //FIDO UseNet Gate fidogate.ru (2:5053/400)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Nicholas Boel on Sat May 10 20:28:21 2014
    Hello Nicholas,

    On Saturday May 10 2014 10:15, you wrote to me:

    True and I am not complaining. I just wonder where the bottleneck
    is. It is not a given that it is the tunnel provider. It could be
    something on my end...

    Possibly using XP (which doesn't fully support it)

    Possibly. However I ran the same test on Rosa's machine. That is also an XP machine, but somewhat less powerfull. The big difference is that Rosa's machine has IPv6 through the he.net tunnel. And you know what? One Rosa's machine I get 16.5 Mbps down. Twice as much as on my own (SixXs) machine.

    or your WRT54GL that didn't originally support it until you flashed it with new firmware? Just wondering if it may be a hardware/software
    thing that was never really intended to support IPV6.

    That may the botleneck om Rosa's machine, but it is unlikely to be the bottleneck on mine. The SixXs tunnel ends on my machie, so it tunnels right through the WRTF. As far as the WRT is concerned, it is just IPv4...

    My test here was done from my Windows 7 machine with an Asus-AC68R
    router using Merlin's firmware (which includes a built in IPV6
    firewall, I believe, over the stock firmware that indeed supports
    IPV6, but unless Asus accepted those modifications by Merlin, never originally or currently includes an IPV6 firewall).

    When I get a round tuit, I will unmothball my laptop. That runs Win 7.


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Nicholas Boel@1:154/701 to Michiel van der Vlist on Sat May 10 14:55:52 2014
    Hello Michiel,

    On 10 May 14 20:28, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Nicholas Boel:

    Possibly using XP (which doesn't fully support it)

    Possibly. However I ran the same test on Rosa's machine. That is also
    an XP machine, but somewhat less powerfull. The big difference is that Rosa's machine has IPv6 through the he.net tunnel. And you know what?
    One Rosa's machine I get 16.5 Mbps down. Twice as much as on my own (SixXs) machine.

    Ah. I, too, have IPV6 through he.net. Maybe SixXs is having issues lately possibly even stemming from and continued on from the issues Björn was having with his connectivity?

    When I get a round tuit, I will unmothball my laptop. That runs Win 7.

    Definitely worth a shot to see if you can narrow it down any more.

    Regards,
    Nick

    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20130910
    * Origin: Dark Sorrow | darksorrow.us (1:154/701)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Denis Mikhlevich on Sun May 11 01:15:04 2014
    Hello Denis,

    On Saturday May 10 2014 22:43, you wrote to me:

    Find count Russia, then city Saratov and select server JSC
    Volgatranstelecom.

    I can't find it....


    I've done screen shot https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17838968/Speedtest_Saratov_Russian .png

    Even with the screen shot it was hard to find, but I did.

    Latency 96 mS, Down 4.58, Up 2.06 Mbps. Hmmm...


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Nicholas Boel on Sun May 11 01:40:54 2014
    Hello Nicholas,

    On Saturday May 10 2014 14:55, you wrote to me:

    Possibly using XP (which doesn't fully support it)

    Possibly. However I ran the same test on Rosa's machine. That is
    also an XP machine, but somewhat less powerfull. The big
    difference is that Rosa's machine has IPv6 through the he.net
    tunnel. And you know what? One Rosa's machine I get 16.5 Mbps
    down. Twice as much as on my own (SixXs) machine.

    Ah. I, too, have IPV6 through he.net. Maybe SixXs is having issues
    lately possibly even stemming from and continued on from the issues
    Bj”rn was having with his connectivity?

    I do not think this is a temporary issue. I have run other IPv6 speed test in the past and the results were always way below my IPv4 speed.

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

    It is a bit difficult to compare because my ISP upped my IPv4 speed from 20/2 to 30/3 earlier this month.

    I just ran another test,I disabled my SixXs tunnel, so that my main machine also uses the he.net tunnel. Then I get the same rusult as with Rosa's machine on the he.net tunnel.

    So maybe the NEXT bottleneck is my WRT54GL that limits the speed via the he.net tunnel at 15 - 16 Mbps, but for the SixXs tunnel it is not the bottleneck and neither is Xp.

    Maybe it is Aiccu. Maybe is is something further down the line.


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Nicholas Boel@1:154/701 to Michiel van der Vlist on Sat May 10 20:19:21 2014
    Hello Michiel,

    On 11 May 14 01:40, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Nicholas Boel:

    I do not think this is a temporary issue. I have run other IPv6 speed
    test in the past and the results were always way below my IPv4 speed.

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

    That site didn't give me good results. Though I'm a cable customer, so it could
    be congested at the moment. At that site my IPv6 score is half of what my IPv4 one is. Then again, that site doesn't show latency or anything like that either, so who knows.

    It is a bit difficult to compare because my ISP upped my IPv4 speed
    from 20/2 to 30/3 earlier this month.

    Well, that was nice of them anyways. I pay extra for a 30/5 connection. I don't
    even know what the normal hookup is, maybe 1.5/512 or something?

    I just ran another test,I disabled my SixXs tunnel, so that my main machine also uses the he.net tunnel. Then I get the same rusult as
    with Rosa's machine on the he.net tunnel.

    So maybe the NEXT bottleneck is my WRT54GL that limits the speed via
    the he.net tunnel at 15 - 16 Mbps, but for the SixXs tunnel it is not
    the bottleneck and neither is Xp.

    You have entirely too much stuff going on over there. :)

    Maybe it is Aiccu. Maybe is is something further down the line.

    Being a residential customer, you'll probably never know the real reason for it, either. Here you can call them and ask, but most of the normal customer service people have no clue what you're talking about, so they direct you to "tier 3 support". Most of them think they know way more than you, so don't tell
    you what they don't think you need to know. :|

    Regards,
    Nick

    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20130910
    * Origin: Dark Sorrow | darksorrow.us (1:154/701)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Nicholas Boel on Sun May 11 16:19:03 2014
    Hello Nicholas,

    On Saturday May 10 2014 20:19, you wrote to me:

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

    That site didn't give me good results.

    Same here. But my point was that the bad results are a constant. And depending on the server that is selected. Which makes me conclude that it does not say all that much about MY end of the pipe.

    Though I'm a cable customer, so it could be congested at the moment.

    I am on cable too and I have never experienced bad throughput that I could relate to local congestion.

    At that site my IPv6 score is half of what my IPv4 one is. Then again, that site doesn't show latency or anything like that either, so who
    knows.

    I think it is pretty useless. It says more about their connection to the backbone than mine.

    It is a bit difficult to compare because my ISP upped my IPv4
    speed from 20/2 to 30/3 earlier this month.

    Well, that was nice of them anyways. I pay extra for a 30/5
    connection. I don't even know what the normal hookup is, maybe 1.5/512
    or something?

    I can't pay less, 30/3 is the lowest they offer. For EUR 10 a month more I get 90/9 and for another tenner it is 180/18. 30/3 is more than I need. Two years ago it was 10/1, then they upped it to 20/2 and now to 30/3. So they stay ahead of the DSL competiton wityh the low speeds. With the highest speeds, they compete with the FTTH guys that are active in some densily populated parts of the country.

    I just ran another test,I disabled my SixXs tunnel, so that my
    main machine also uses the he.net tunnel. Then I get the same
    rusult as with Rosa's machine on the he.net tunnel.

    So maybe the NEXT bottleneck is my WRT54GL that limits the speed
    via the he.net tunnel at 15 - 16 Mbps,

    As you noticed the WRT54GL was never designed for IPv6, it definitely does not have IPv6 dedicated hardware and as it is, with 30 Mbbps om IPv4 it may already run close to its limits. Doing something about it is not high on my list of priorities. I do not need the speed and the days of the WRT54Gl as my main router are numbered anyway. There are signs my ISP is finally making some moves toward IPv6 and I expect to have native IPv6 somewhere between coming Xmas and the next.

    When that happens my (actually my ISP's) good old faithful Motorola SBV5120E will have to make room for a DOCSIS 3.0 modem. It is almost certain my ISP will give me a modem with build in router. I may or may not like what I get, but investing now in a new router that probably will only be used for another 6 to 18 month, is not on top of my list of options.

    but for the SixXs tunnel it is not the bottleneck and neither is Xp.

    You have entirely too much stuff going on over there. :)

    If you say so... ;-)


    Maybe it is Aiccu. Maybe is is something further down the line.

    Being a residential customer, you'll probably never know the real
    reason for it, either. Here you can call them and ask,

    If by "them" you mean my ISP, then yes, I can ask. But I won't get an answer because "they" have nothing to do at all with my IPv6 access. What they sell is IPv4 at 30/3 and that is what I get. They deliver what they advertise.

    Ask SixXs? Thanks, but no thanks. My experience with asking SixXs is that their standard answer is RTFM.

    but most of the normal customer service people have no clue what
    you're talking about, so they direct you to "tier 3 support". Most of
    them think they know way more than you, so don't tell you what they
    don't think you need to know. :|

    The best help desk is the one you never need....


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Bill McGarrity@1:266/404 to Michiel van der Vlist on Sun May 11 11:33:00 2014
    Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Nicholas Boel <=-

    Hiya Michiel

    On Saturday May 10 2014 20:19, you wrote to me:

    When that happens my (actually my ISP's) good old faithful Motorola SBV5120E will have to make room for a DOCSIS 3.0 modem. It is almost certain my ISP will give me a modem with build in router. I may or may not like what I get, but investing now in a new router that probably
    will only be used for another 6 to 18 month, is not on top of my list
    of options.

    Doesn't your ISP offer the option of you purchasing your own modem and deduct the monthly lease fee? I did that when I got my new service. I went out and purchased my own DOCSIS 3.0 for $70 and they don't charge me the $7/month lease fee. I purchased the SB6141. Works great and the ROI was 10 months!!

    The best help desk is the one you never need....

    Isn't that the truth...

    Enjoy!!




    Bill

    Telnet: bbs.tequilamockingbirdonline.net
    Web: bbs.tequilamockingbirdonline.net
    IRC: irc.tequilamockingbirdonline.net Ports: 6661-6670 SSL: +6697
    Radio: radio.tequilamockingbirdonline.net:8010/live


    ... Motorcycles are everywhere... Look twice, save a life!!
    --- MultiMail/Win32 v0.50
    --- SBBSecho 2.27-Win32
    * Origin: TequilaMockingbird Online - Toms River, NJ (1:266/404)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Bill McGarrity on Sun May 11 19:55:04 2014
    Hello Bill,

    On Sunday May 11 2014 11:33, you wrote to me:

    When that happens my (actually my ISP's) good old faithful
    Motorola SBV5120E will have to make room for a DOCSIS 3.0 modem.
    It is almost certain my ISP will give me a modem with build in
    router. I may or may not like what I get, but investing now in a
    new router that probably will only be used for another 6 to 18
    month, is not on top of my list of options.

    Doesn't your ISP offer the option of you purchasing your own modem and deduct the monthly lease fee?

    No, the cable ISPs don't lease out the modems, they are given on loan. There is no monthly fee, so nothing to deduct if you get your own. This way they ensure that the modems used by their clients are compatible with their network. If the contract is terminated, the modem should be returned and when you fail, they send you a bill. That is the theory. In practise the used modems have so litttle residual value that they never claim it back and ask you to dispose of it yourself, or keep it if you want.

    I did that when I got my new service. I went out and purchased my own DOCSIS 3.0 for $70 and they don't charge me the $7/month lease fee. I purchased the SB6141. Works great and the ROI was 10 months!!

    That would have been my choice as well, had it been offered.


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Bill McGarrity on Sun May 11 22:53:18 2014
    Hello Bill,

    Sunday May 11 2014 19:55, I wrote to you:

    I went out and purchased my own DOCSIS 3.0 for $70

    So your modem is ready for IPv6. How about your ISP? Have they announced any plans? And what about yourself? I see that your binkp server is Irex. I have given up hope that it will ever do IPv6 and dumped it for binkd.


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Bill McGarrity@1:266/404 to Michiel van der Vlist on Sun May 11 16:53:00 2014
    Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Bill McGarrity <=-

    Hiya Michiel...

    On Sunday May 11 2014 11:33, you wrote to me:

    When that happens my (actually my ISP's) good old faithful
    Motorola SBV5120E will have to make room for a DOCSIS 3.0 modem.
    It is almost certain my ISP will give me a modem with build in
    router. I may or may not like what I get, but investing now in a
    new router that probably will only be used for another 6 to 18
    month, is not on top of my list of options.

    Doesn't your ISP offer the option of you purchasing your own modem and deduct the monthly lease fee?

    No, the cable ISPs don't lease out the modems, they are given on loan. There is no monthly fee, so nothing to deduct if you get your own. This way they ensure that the modems used by their clients are compatible
    with their network. If the contract is terminated, the modem should be

    My ISP offers their clients a list of compatable modems which can be used.

    returned and when you fail, they send you a bill. That is the theory.
    In practise the used modems have so litttle residual value that they never claim it back and ask you to dispose of it yourself, or keep it
    if you want.

    Over here if it has their name on it, residual value means squat and they'll force you to pay what they want you to pay. I just handed in all my old stuff so I wouldn't have to go through all the BS.

    I did that when I got my new service. I went out and purchased my own DOCSIS 3.0 for $70 and they don't charge me the $7/month lease fee. I purchased the SB6141. Works great and the ROI was 10 months!!

    That would have been my choice as well, had it been offered.

    Agreed...


    Bill

    Telnet: bbs.tequilamockingbirdonline.net
    Web: bbs.tequilamockingbirdonline.net
    IRC: irc.tequilamockingbirdonline.net Ports: 6661-6670 SSL: +6697
    Radio: radio.tequilamockingbirdonline.net:8010/live


    ... Motorcycles are everywhere... Look twice, save a life!!
    --- MultiMail/Win32 v0.50
    --- SBBSecho 2.27-Win32
    * Origin: TequilaMockingbird Online - Toms River, NJ (1:266/404)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Bill McGarrity on Mon May 12 00:24:37 2014
    Hello Bill,

    On Sunday May 11 2014 16:53, you wrote to me:

    In practise the used modems have so litttle residual value that they
    never claim it back and ask you to dispose of it yourself, or keep
    it if you want.

    Over here if it has their name on it, residual value means squat and they'll force you to pay what they want you to pay. I just handed in
    all my old stuff so I wouldn't have to go through all the BS.

    Fortunately here they take a more pragmatic stance. Legally they ARE entitled to get their property back, but the reality is that the cost of retrieving and disposing exceeds the residual value, so they don't bother.

    It may have to do with regulations.

    1) When push comes to shove, they have to come pick it up. They can not force me to pay for the cost of returning it.

    2) What I can do as a consumer: just throw it in the waste bin, is something they as a company can not. THEY have to dispose of it in an environmentally responsible way. Once it is in their hands it is their responsibility that the lead in the solder does not get into the food chain. Or the cadmium in the batteries does not come into the lungs of the workers. Or... etc, etc..

    They can not give my Motorola DOCSIS 2.1 to another customer. It is no longer "state of the art". It will only cost them to get it back and dispose of it. So they will happily dump it on me with a "it is yours, do with it as you please" note.

    But we are drifting from the subject.

    How is your IPv6 connection?


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Bill McGarrity@1:266/404 to Michiel van der Vlist on Sun May 11 18:13:00 2014
    Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Bill McGarrity <=-

    Hiya Michiel...

    Sunday May 11 2014 19:55, I wrote to you:

    I went out and purchased my own DOCSIS 3.0 for $70

    So your modem is ready for IPv6. How about your ISP? Have they
    announced any plans? And what about yourself? I see that your binkp server is Irex. I have given up hope that it will ever do IPv6 and
    dumped it for binkd.


    Yes it is but I'm not too sure about Comcast being ready. It's really not important to me as of now but I know it is coming. Regarding Irex, I am in the process of updating to D'Bridge as soon as I can put time into getting things configured. I'm pretty sure that can handle IPv6.


    Bill

    Telnet: bbs.tequilamockingbirdonline.net
    Web: bbs.tequilamockingbirdonline.net
    IRC: irc.tequilamockingbirdonline.net Ports: 6661-6670 SSL: +6697
    Radio: radio.tequilamockingbirdonline.net:8010/live


    ... Motorcycles are everywhere... Look twice, save a life!!
    --- MultiMail/Win32 v0.50
    --- SBBSecho 2.27-Win32
    * Origin: TequilaMockingbird Online - Toms River, NJ (1:266/404)
  • From Bill McGarrity@1:266/404 to Michiel van der Vlist on Sun May 11 20:56:00 2014
    Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Bill McGarrity <=-

    Hiya Michiel...

    On Sunday May 11 2014 16:53, you wrote to me:

    [...] Deleted for teh sake of off topic...

    But we are drifting from the subject.

    How is your IPv6 connection?


    I haven't even looked into it and I really don't know if Comcast offers it yet.
    As I said, as soon as I have some time I find out and go from there. I'm not that familiar with IPv6 so it's unchartered territory... :)


    Bill

    Telnet: bbs.tequilamockingbirdonline.net
    Web: bbs.tequilamockingbirdonline.net
    IRC: irc.tequilamockingbirdonline.net Ports: 6661-6670 SSL: +6697
    Radio: radio.tequilamockingbirdonline.net:8010/live


    ... Motorcycles are everywhere... Look twice, save a life!!
    --- MultiMail/Win32 v0.50
    --- SBBSecho 2.27-Win32
    * Origin: TequilaMockingbird Online - Toms River, NJ (1:266/404)
  • From Joe Delahaye@1:249/303 to Bill McGarrity on Sun May 11 22:01:45 2014
    Re: Re: UPC IPv6 speed test
    By: Bill McGarrity to Michiel van der Vlist on Sun May 11 2014 18:13:00

    Yes it is but I'm not too sure about Comcast being ready. It's really not important to me as of now but I know it is coming. Regarding Irex, I am in the process of updating to D'Bridge as soon as I can put time into getting things configured. I'm pretty sure that can handle IPv6.


    DB is not yet ready for IPv6 I think that Nick is planning to implement that, probably for the next major version release. Not sure though
    --- SBBSecho 2.27-Win32
    * Origin: The Lions Den BBS, Trenton, On, CDN (1:249/303)
  • From Bill McGarrity@1:266/404 to Joe Delahaye on Mon May 12 00:06:00 2014
    Joe Delahaye wrote to Bill McGarrity <=-

    Re: Re: UPC IPv6 speed test
    By: Bill McGarrity to Michiel van der Vlist on Sun May 11 2014
    18:13:00

    Yes it is but I'm not too sure about Comcast being ready. It's really not important to me as of now but I know it is coming. Regarding Irex, I am in the process of updating to D'Bridge as soon as I can put time into getting things configured. I'm pretty sure that can handle IPv6.


    DB is not yet ready for IPv6 I think that Nick is planning to
    implement that, probably for the next major version release. Not sure though

    Ahhh... ok. I didn't really know one way or the other... but I did upgrade IRex to 2.31 I still have to do testing with the FD nodelist to see if it will now read it properly. According to the history notes that part was upgraded so I won't have to route all my netmail through Janis. :)


    Bill

    Telnet: bbs.tequilamockingbirdonline.net
    Web: bbs.tequilamockingbirdonline.net
    IRC: irc.tequilamockingbirdonline.net Ports: 6661-6670 SSL: +6697
    Radio: radio.tequilamockingbirdonline.net:8010/live


    ... Motorcycles are everywhere... Look twice, save a life!!
    --- MultiMail/Win32 v0.50
    --- SBBSecho 2.27-Win32
    * Origin: TequilaMockingbird Online - Toms River, NJ (1:266/404)
  • From Andrew Leary@1:320/119 to Bill McGarrity on Mon May 12 03:31:40 2014
    Hello Bill!

    Sunday May 11 2014 18:13, Bill McGarrity wrote to Michiel van der Vlist:

    Yes it is but I'm not too sure about Comcast being ready. It's really
    not important to me as of now but I know it is coming. Regarding
    Irex, I am in the process of updating to D'Bridge as soon as I can put time into getting things configured. I'm pretty sure that can handle
    IPv6.

    D'Bridge itself is not IPv6 aware. However, since it uses binkd to provide BinkP support, it follows that a D'Bridge system should support IPv6, given proper setup of a native IPv6 connection or an IPv6 tunnel. In theory, a virtual modem package that supports IPv6 would allow for mailer-over-telnet via IPv6 as well.

    Andrew

    ---
    * Origin: Bits & Bytes BBS * V.Everything! * 860/535-4284 (1:320/119)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Bill McGarrity on Mon May 12 10:39:56 2014
    Hello Bill,

    On Sunday May 11 2014 20:56, you wrote to me:

    How is your IPv6 connection?

    I haven't even looked into it and I really don't know if Comcast
    offers it yet.

    Comcast is one of the forerunners in Northern America. They have a web page dedicated to it: http://www.comcast6.net/

    Comcast's IPv6 deployment continues to expand, over 25% of our customers
    are actively provisioned with native dual stack broadband! The
    following areas of the Comcast broadband footprint are now fully IPv6 enabled - Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Kansas, Missouri, Maryland,
    Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Houston.

    That was published in December, so maybe you already have IPv6 without knowing it. Ask them! If you want IPv6, Comcast certainly is a good choice.

    As I said, as soon as I have some time I find out and go from there.
    I'm not that familiar with IPv6 so it's unchartered territory... :)

    You have come to the right place.. ;-)


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Andrew Leary on Mon May 12 11:07:57 2014
    Hello Andrew,

    On Monday May 12 2014 03:31, you wrote to Bill McGarrity:

    D'Bridge itself is not IPv6 aware. However, since it uses binkd to provide BinkP support, it follows that a D'Bridge system should
    support IPv6,

    The heart is there, but it would need some upgrading at the edges. E.g. the setup uitility needs to be upgraded to handle IPv6 addresses...

    given proper setup of a native IPv6 connection or an IPv6 tunnel.

    That too...

    In theory, a virtual modem package that supports IPv6 would allow for mailer-over-telnet via IPv6 as well.

    That is just theory. There is no IPv6 aware virtual modem package yet, and it is doubtful there ever will.

    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Bill McGarrity on Mon May 12 11:21:26 2014
    Hello Bill,

    Monday May 12 2014 10:39, I wrote to you:

    Comcast is one of the forerunners in Northern America. They have a web page dedicated to it: http://www.comcast6.net/

    It would appear that for Comcast customers that page does more than just give general information. When I approach it from an IPv4 only machine it tells me:

    "You need to be on the Comcast Cable Network to check for IPv6 status.

    Whe I approach it via my SIxXs tunnel it says:

    "Your IPv6 address seems to be an address from non-Comcast space. If you have a v6 tunnel turned up please shut down your v6 tunnel and come back again."

    That of course triggers my curiosity. So please go to that page and tell us what it says you about your IPv6 status...


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Rudi Timmermans@2:562/140 to Michiel van der Vlist on Mon May 12 12:04:58 2014
    Hi Michiel,

    That is just theory. There is no IPv6 aware virtual modem package yet, and it is doubtful there ever will.

    Mike of PCM will make NetSerial Ipv6 compatible hi told me.

    Greetings,

    Rudi

    --- BBBS/NT v4.10 Dada-1
    * Origin: X-TReMe BBS - Web BBS: http://xtremebbs.dyndns.info:8080 (2:562/140)
  • From Joe Delahaye@1:249/303 to Bill McGarrity on Mon May 12 07:46:05 2014
    Re: Re: UPC IPv6 speed test
    By: Bill McGarrity to Joe Delahaye on Mon May 12 2014 00:06:00


    Ahhh... ok. I didn't really know one way or the other... but I did upgrade IRex to 2.31 I still have to do testing with the FD nodelist to see if it will now read it properly. According to the history notes that part was upgraded so I won't have to route all my netmail through Janis. :)


    I'm running that, and I dont think it will
    --- SBBSecho 2.27-Win32
    * Origin: The Lions Den BBS, Trenton, On, CDN (1:249/303)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Rudi Timmermans on Mon May 12 14:03:20 2014
    Hello Rudi,

    On Monday May 12 2014 12:04, you wrote to me:

    That is just theory. There is no IPv6 aware virtual modem package
    yet, and it is doubtful there ever will.

    Mike of PCM will make NetSerial Ipv6 compatible hi told me.

    That is what you told me two years ago. I am not holding my breath.


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Bill McGarrity@1:266/404 to Michiel van der Vlist on Mon May 12 09:00:00 2014
    Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Bill McGarrity <=-

    Hiya Michiel...

    Monday May 12 2014 10:39, I wrote to you:

    Comcast is one of the forerunners in Northern America. They have a web page dedicated to it: http://www.comcast6.net/

    It would appear that for Comcast customers that page does more than
    just give general information. When I approach it from an IPv4 only machine it tells me:

    "You need to be on the Comcast Cable Network to check for IPv6 status.

    Whe I approach it via my SIxXs tunnel it says:

    "Your IPv6 address seems to be an address from non-Comcast space. If
    you have a v6 tunnel turned up please shut down your v6 tunnel and come back again."

    That of course triggers my curiosity. So please go to that page and
    tell us what it says you about your IPv6 status...


    I stopped bt the url you suggested and low and behold..

    Your IP address is 174.57.205.118 Your CMTS is ready for IPv6. Please check this website for modem support. - I run the test they offer and it says:

    You appear to have no IPv6 at this time..

    You appear to have no IPv6 address.

    It looks like you have only IPv4 Internet service at this time. Don't feel bad - most people are in this position right now. Most Internet service providers are not quite yet ready to provide IPv6 Internet to residential customers.

    Many of the visitors to the site are new to what IPv6 is. If you don't know why IPv6 matters, see the Why IPv6 FAQ. This will give you a bit of background of what to expect with IPv4 in the coming months and years; and perhaps some incentive to ask your ISP when they will offer IPv6.

    If you strongly believe you have IPv6, but we were unable to detect it: it means one of a couple of things. Either your organization is blocking the use of IPv6 to talk to the outside Internet through network policy; or perhaps what you see with IPv6 on your host is not a global address. Any address starting with "::", "fc", "fd", or "fe" are unable to work with the public IPv6
    nternet.

    If you are savvy with technology, you can be an early adopter of IPv6, consider learning more about 6to4 providers (managed 6to4 tunnel services). The use of automatic tunnels is discouraged.

    As I said, it's not soemthing that's at the top of my list right now... but I know it will be needed one day.

    Thanks for the info!!



    Bill

    Telnet: bbs.tequilamockingbirdonline.net
    Web: bbs.tequilamockingbirdonline.net
    IRC: irc.tequilamockingbirdonline.net Ports: 6661-6670 SSL: +6697
    Radio: radio.tequilamockingbirdonline.net:8010/live


    ... Motorcycles are everywhere... Look twice, save a life!!
    --- MultiMail/Win32 v0.50
    --- SBBSecho 2.27-Win32
    * Origin: TequilaMockingbird Online - Toms River, NJ (1:266/404)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Bill McGarrity on Mon May 12 16:24:12 2014
    Hello Bill,

    On Monday May 12 2014 09:00, you wrote to me:

    I stopped bt the url you suggested and low and behold..

    Your IP address is 174.57.205.118 Your CMTS is ready for IPv6.

    CMTS = Cable Modem Termination System. Their end of the pipe.

    So they say they are ready for IPv6. Your SB6141 should also be ready. So my guess is that:

    1) It is your router that is not IPv6 ready

    Or

    2) Your computer is not IPv6 ready. All windows versions from XP up are IPv6 ready, but for XP you must enable it.


    What happens if you open up a command window and type: "ipconfig" ?

    As I said, it's not soemthing that's at the top of my list right
    now... but I know it will be needed one day.

    You don't know what you are missing...

    Thanks for the info!!

    You'r welcome.


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Rudi Timmermans@2:562/140 to Michiel van der Vlist on Mon May 12 16:40:14 2014
    Hi Michiel,

    Yes i know but Mike still dont have Ipv6 there...

    This is what hi post me on Facebook a few mins ago.

    All versions of Microsoft Windows which support IPv6 are "dual stack", meaning they can operate in both IPv6 and IPv4 networks.

    Any customer upgrading their network to be IPv6-compliant will not encounter any issues with NetSerial, as IPv4 connectivity will still be needed for many other devices and software on the network.

    While the updating to a IPv6-based network is mandated or needed in some cases, these networks will be required to also support IPv4 for the foreseeable future. Until the last device and piece of software that requires IPv4 is removed from a network (including any external devices/systems that interact with it), there will be a need for the network to support IPv4 in addition to IPv6.

    Therefore, PC Micro will not be incorporating direct support for connecting to network endpoints using IPv6 addresses this year and has decided to continue using IPv4 in its products through the end of 2014. Our products will continue to require that network endpoints be specified using IPv4 addresses, or hostnames which resolve to IPv4 addresses.


    Best Regards!
    Rudi Timmermans.

    --- BBBS/NT v4.10 Dada-1
    * Origin: X-TReMe BBS - Web BBS: http://xtremebbs.dyndns.info:8080 (2:562/140)
  • From Rudi Timmermans@2:562/140 to Michiel van der Vlist on Mon May 12 16:50:16 2014
    Hi Michiel,

    On Monday May 12 2014 12:04, you wrote to me:

    That is what you told me two years ago. I am not holding my breath.

    That's what the told me also, but it's not up to me to do this.

    I can not make it support it the have do it.

    Best Regards!
    Rudi Timmermans.

    --- BBBS/NT v4.10 Dada-1
    * Origin: X-TReMe BBS - Web BBS: http://xtremebbs.dyndns.info:8080 (2:562/140)
  • From Bill McGarrity@1:266/404 to Michiel van der Vlist on Mon May 12 11:29:00 2014
    Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Bill McGarrity <=-

    Hiya Michiel...

    On Monday May 12 2014 09:00, you wrote to me:

    I stopped bt the url you suggested and low and behold..

    Your IP address is 174.57.205.118 Your CMTS is ready for IPv6.

    CMTS = Cable Modem Termination System. Their end of the pipe.

    So they say they are ready for IPv6. Your SB6141 should also be ready.
    So my guess is that:

    1) It is your router that is not IPv6 ready


    It's the router... it's a Cisco E3000

    Or

    2) Your computer is not IPv6 ready. All windows versions from XP up are IPv6 ready, but for XP you must enable it.

    I'm running Server2008 Enterprise... it says it's IPv6 ready.. :)


    What happens if you open up a command window and type: "ipconfig" ?

    says:
    .
    IPv6 address: 2002:ae39:cd76:0:89a0:1f59:d57d:61da
    Link-local IPv6: fe80::89a0:1f59:d57d:61da%10
    IPv4 Address: 192.168.1.2
    Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.0
    Default Gateway: fe80::6a7f:74ff:fec4:3c75%10
    .. 192.168.1.1
    Tunnel Adapter Local Area Connection* 8:

    Media State: Media disconncted
    Connection-specific DNS Sffix:


    As I said, it's not soemthing that's at the top of my list right
    now... but I know it will be needed one day.

    You don't know what you are missing...

    Ignorance is bliss sometimes... :)

    Thanks for the info!!

    You'r welcome.

    :)


    Bill

    Telnet: bbs.tequilamockingbirdonline.net
    Web: bbs.tequilamockingbirdonline.net
    IRC: irc.tequilamockingbirdonline.net Ports: 6661-6670 SSL: +6697
    Radio: radio.tequilamockingbirdonline.net:8010/live


    ... Motorcycles are everywhere... Look twice, save a life!!
    --- MultiMail/Win32 v0.50
    --- SBBSecho 2.27-Win32
    * Origin: TequilaMockingbird Online - Toms River, NJ (1:266/404)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Rudi Timmermans on Mon May 12 21:44:11 2014
    Hello Rudi,

    On Monday May 12 2014 16:40, you wrote to me:

    Any customer upgrading their network to be IPv6-compliant will not encounter any issues with NetSerial, as IPv4 connectivity will still
    be needed for many other devices and software on the network.

    While the updating to a IPv6-based network is mandated or needed in
    some cases, these networks will be required to also support IPv4 for
    the foreseeable future.

    The same bogus reasoning that I have been hearing from providers that are dragging their feet in regard to IPv6.

    Yes, IPv4 will be with us for many years to come. And yes, ISPs will see to it that you still have IPv4 access. What he overlooks is that some customers will be behind a CGNAT and so their IPv6 access will be crippled. It will be client only, you can not run servers from behind a CGNAT.

    Therefore, PC Micro will not be incorporating direct support for connecting to network endpoints using IPv6 addresses this year and has decided to continue using IPv4 in its products through the end of
    2014. Our products will continue to require that network endpoints be specified using IPv4 addresses, or hostnames which resolve to IPv4 addresses.

    What I read here is something different from what you read. You read:

    "Mike of PCM will make NetSerial Ipv6 compatible hi told me"

    What I read is: "I will not add IPv6, certainly not this year."


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Rudi Timmermans on Mon May 12 21:52:09 2014
    Hello Rudi,

    On Monday May 12 2014 16:50, you wrote to me:

    That is what you told me two years ago. I am not holding my breath.

    That's what the told me also, but it's not up to me to do this.

    I can not make it support it the have do it.

    Of course you can't. It is up to him and it is his choice.

    Bottom line: Netserial has no IPv6 and we do not know if it ever will.

    It is not my problem, I have no use for Netserial.


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Bill McGarrity on Mon May 12 21:58:42 2014
    Hello Bill,

    On Monday May 12 2014 11:29, you wrote to me:

    ready. So my guess is that:

    1) It is your router that is not IPv6 ready

    It's the router... it's a Cisco E3000

    I hag a look at the specs and I can't find anything about IPv6, so I guess you are right, your router does not support IPv6. :-(

    I am a bit surprised, it does not look that old. Five years ago, when I got my SixXs tunnel and with that IPv6 access to the Internet, I promised myself not to by any more new network equipment that did not support IPv6. Back then the list of IPv6 capable routers was short, but that was five years ago.

    Maybe there is a firmware upgrade available?

    Just to dod some more illimination: what happens when you bypass the router ad plug your computer directly into the cable modem? What does comcar tell you then? And what does http://test-ipv6.com/ say?

    I'm running Server2008 Enterprise... it says it's IPv6 ready.. :)

    OK.

    What happens if you open up a command window and type:
    "ipconfig" ?

    says:
    .
    IPv6 address: 2002:ae39:cd76:0:89a0:1f59:d57d:61da

    So you DO have an IPv6 address. But... it is a 6to4 address. The 2002: is the 6to4 prefix and the ae39:cd76 is the hex representation of your IPv4 address 174.57.205.118.

    The last four 16 bit hex numbers, the host part, are probably derived form your MAC address, they are the same as those in the lnk local address below.

    Link-local IPv6: fe80::89a0:1f59:d57d:61da%10

    fe80:: is the prefix for a link local address, the host part is derived form the MAC address of the NIC.

    IPv4 Address: 192.168.1.2
    Subnet Mask: 255.255.255.0
    Default Gateway: fe80::6a7f:74ff:fec4:3c75%10

    That one is probably the link local address of your router. Again, the host part derived from the MAC address (of your router)

    But... if that router has a link local address, it must have IPv6...

    So maybe it DOES have IPv6 but you need to enable something to make it work...

    I suggest you ask Cisco.


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Nicholas Boel@1:154/701 to Rudi Timmermans on Mon May 12 17:14:21 2014
    On 05-12-14, Rudi Timmermans said the following...

    Therefore, PC Micro will not be incorporating direct support for connecting to network endpoints using IPv6 addresses this year and has decided to continue using IPv4 in its products through the end of 2014. Our products will continue to require that network endpoints be
    specified using IPv4 addresses, or hostnames which resolve to IPv4 addresses.

    Better luck next year! :)

    Regards,
    Nick

    --- Mystic BBS v1.10 A39 (Linux)
    * Origin: Dark Sorrow | telnet://bbs.darksorrow.us (1:154/701)
  • From Joe Delahaye@1:249/303 to Michiel van der Vlist on Mon May 12 21:49:52 2014
    Re: Comcast & IPv6
    By: Michiel van der Vlist to Bill McGarrity on Mon May 12 2014 21:58:42

    But... if that router has a link local address, it must have IPv6...

    So maybe it DOES have IPv6 but you need to enable something to make it work...

    I suggest you ask Cisco.


    So what does this tell you Michiel. I have a DLink DIR- 655, According to the m anual, there should be an IPv6 setup tab, which is missing. Here is what I get when I run ipconfig


    Connection-specific DNS Suffix . :
    Link-local IPv6 Address . . . . . : fe80::c71:c459:6cce:9fea%3
    IPv4 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.187
    Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
    Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.1

    Tunnel adapter isatap.{05D75F4A-EEE5-444E-8824-9B3F2B69843A}:

    Media State . . . . . . . . . . . : Media disconnected
    Connection-specific DNS Suffix . :

    Tunnel adapter Local Area Connection* 11:

    Connection-specific DNS Suffix . :
    IPv6 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 2001:0:9d38:6ab8:38f0:1b2d:3f57:ff44
    Link-local IPv6 Address . . . . . : fe80::38f0:1b2d:3f57:ff44%5
    Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . :

    Tunnel adapter isatap.{87637A74-7C58-4C7E-B1D3-53F775615AC3}:

    Media State . . . . . . . . . . . : Media disconnected
    Connection-specific DNS Suffix . :
    --- SBBSecho 2.27-Win32
    * Origin: The Lions Den BBS, Trenton, On, CDN (1:249/303)
  • From Rudi Timmermans@2:562/140 to Michiel van der Vlist on Tue May 13 07:27:00 2014
    Hi Michiel,

    What I read here is something different from what you read. You read:

    "Mike of PCM will make NetSerial Ipv6 compatible hi told me"

    What I read is: "I will not add IPv6, certainly not this year."

    I dont have say it was this year.


    Best Regards!
    Rudi Timmermans.

    --- BBBS/NT v4.10 Dada-1
    * Origin: X-TReMe BBS - Web BBS: http://xtremebbs.dyndns.info:8080 (2:562/140)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Joe Delahaye on Tue May 13 11:08:59 2014
    Hello Joe,

    On Monday May 12 2014 21:49, you wrote to me:

    So what does this tell you Michiel. I have a DLink DIR- 655,
    According to the m anual, there should be an IPv6 setup tab, which is missing.

    Then perhaps the firmware version is older than the version of the manual? Perhaps you need a firmware upgrade?

    Here is what I get when I run ipconfig


    Connection-specific DNS Suffix . :
    Link-local IPv6 Address . . . . . : fe80::c71:c459:6cce:9fea%3
    IPv4 Address. . . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.187
    Subnet Mask . . . . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
    Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . : 192.168.0.1

    I see a link local address, but no unique global address. Also no IPv6 default gateway. IOW, no traces of your router doing IPv6.

    What if you do "ipconfig /all" ?

    Tunnel adapter Local Area Connection* 11:

    Connection-specific DNS Suffix . :
    IPv6 Address. . . . . . . . . .. :
    2001:0:9d38:6ab8:38f0:1b2d:3f57:ff44
    Link-local IPv6 Address . . . . . : fe80::38f0:1b2d:3f57:ff44%5
    Default Gateway . . . . . . . . . :

    That looks like a Teredeo address. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teredo_tunneling

    It is setup without any help from the router by your Windows 8. Quite useless, Teredo is broken, but it is another indication that your router has no idea of IPv6. Teredo is kind of a last resort. The fact that your Win8 tries to set up a Teredo tunnel indicates, there is no other way available.


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Joe Delahaye on Tue May 13 12:05:40 2014
    Hello Joe,

    Tuesday May 13 2014 11:08, I wrote to you:


    So what does this tell you Michiel. I have a DLink DIR- 655,
    According to the m anual, there should be an IPv6 setup tab,
    which is missing.

    Then perhaps the firmware version is older than the version of the
    manual? Perhaps you need a firmware upgrade?

    I found the manual and took a peek. It says that from version 2.3 of july 3, 2012 it supports IPv6 routing and firewall.

    How to set it up is described on pages 40-54.


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Joe Delahaye@1:249/303 to Michiel van der Vlist on Tue May 13 11:06:56 2014
    Re: Comcast & IPv6
    By: Michiel van der Vlist to Joe Delahaye on Tue May 13 2014 11:08:59

    Then perhaps the firmware version is older than the version of the manual? Perhaps you need a firmware upgrade?

    I have the latest firmware installed. When I got the router, it was still a pre-N version. I went to the DLInk site and got the latest firmware update. I also downloaded the manual for it. The manual shows the tab, but my config page does not have it :( The help tech in email did not know how to answer it.
    One of these days I will call the number and see what is going on. Strange thing is that this is much newer then my previous router, and it had IPv6 configuration. Aloso a DLink.

    It is setup without any help from the router by your Windows 8. Quite useless, Teredo is broken, but it is another indication that your router has no idea of IPv6. Teredo is kind of a last resort. The fact that your Win8 tries to set up a Teredo tunnel indicates, there is no other way available.

    OK, so windows is trying, without any luck <G>
    --- SBBSecho 2.27-Win32
    * Origin: The Lions Den BBS, Trenton, On, CDN (1:249/303)
  • From Joe Delahaye@1:249/303 to Michiel van der Vlist on Tue May 13 11:09:40 2014
    Re: Comcast & IPv6
    By: Michiel van der Vlist to Joe Delahaye on Tue May 13 2014 12:05:40

    Then perhaps the firmware version is older than the version of the
    manual? Perhaps you need a firmware upgrade?

    I found the manual and took a peek. It says that from version 2.3 of july 3, 2012 it supports IPv6 routing and firewall.

    How to set it up is described on pages 40-54.


    Hardware version A2 and firmwar version 1.37NA

    I have read the manual :(
    --- SBBSecho 2.27-Win32
    * Origin: The Lions Den BBS, Trenton, On, CDN (1:249/303)
  • From Markus Reschke@2:240/1661 to Michiel van der Vlist on Tue May 13 18:31:56 2014
    Hallo Michiel!

    May 13 11:08 2014, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Joe Delahaye:

    So what does this tell you Michiel. I have a DLink DIR- 655,
    According to the m anual, there should be an IPv6 setup tab, which is
    missing.

    MvdV> Then perhaps the firmware version is older than the version of the
    MvdV> manual? Perhaps you need a firmware upgrade?

    There are two major hardware versions of the DIR-655 with different firmwares. The older doesn't support IPv6 and can't be updated, i.e. D-Link doesn't provide an update. The Rev 2 model supports IPv6. I had the older model and sold it because of that. I wouldn't recommend D-Link routers anyway unless the specific type is supported by OpenWRT. D-Link does a lousy job maintaining the firmwares and WLAN reliability is quite poor.

    Regards,
    Markus

    ---
    * Origin: *** theca tabellaria *** (2:240/1661)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Rudi Timmermans on Tue May 13 18:44:47 2014
    Hello Rudi,

    On Tuesday May 13 2014 07:27, you wrote to me:

    What I read here is something different from what you read. You
    read:

    "Mike of PCM will make NetSerial Ipv6 compatible hi told me"

    What I read is: "I will not add IPv6, certainly not this year."

    I dont have say it was this year.

    Indeed, you left that out. It is what HE said. Summarized as: "not this year".

    "Not this year" is not the same as "yes". 60+ years of life experience have taught me that to avoid deception, "not this year" is best read as "no".


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Björn Felten@2:203/2 to Markus Reschke on Tue May 13 19:41:33 2014
    D-Link does a lousy job maintaining the firmwares and WLAN reliability
    is quite poor.

    Plus they have a long history of overheating.

    --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
    * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)
  • From Joe Delahaye@1:249/303 to Björn Felten on Tue May 13 14:39:06 2014
    Re: Comcast & IPv6
    By: Bj”rn Felten to Markus Reschke on Tue May 13 2014 19:41:33

    D-Link does a lousy job maintaining the firmwares and WLAN
    reliability is quite poor.

    Plus they have a long history of overheating.


    Always had good luck. Over the years that is all I have used. Never had one overheat on me.
    --- SBBSecho 2.27-Win32
    * Origin: The Lions Den BBS, Trenton, On, CDN (1:249/303)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Joe Delahaye on Wed May 14 16:30:51 2014
    Hello Joe,

    On Tuesday May 13 2014 11:06, you wrote to me:

    I have the latest firmware installed. When I got the router, it was
    still a pre-N version. I went to the DLInk site and got the latest firmware update. I also downloaded the manual for it. The manual
    shows the tab, but my config page does not have it :(

    Then I fear you ran into the same problem as Markus. You probably have the older version of the DIR-655 with the hardware that does not support IPv6.

    I do not know how you feel about this, but if it were to happen to me, I would be severely disappointed. Any chance of getting your money back?

    The help tech in email did not know how to answer it. One of these
    days I will call the number and see what is going on. Strange thing
    is that this is much newer then my previous router, and it had IPv6 configuration. Aloso a DLink.

    So why did you by a new one in the first place?

    It is setup without any help from the router by your Windows 8.
    Quite useless, Teredo is broken, but it is another indication
    that your router has no idea of IPv6. Teredo is kind of a last
    resort. The fact that your Win8 tries to set up a Teredo tunnel
    indicates, there is no other way available.

    OK, so windows is trying, without any luck <G>

    That is what it looks like...


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Joe Delahaye on Wed May 14 16:36:01 2014
    Hello Joe,

    On Tuesday May 13 2014 11:09, you wrote to me:

    Then perhaps the firmware version is older than the version of
    the manual? Perhaps you need a firmware upgrade?

    I found the manual and took a peek. It says that from version 2.3
    of july 3, 2012 it supports IPv6 routing and firewall.

    How to set it up is described on pages 40-54.

    And what is described there looks really good. It supports native IPv6 plus several tunnel types.

    Hardware version A2 and firmwar version 1.37NA

    That means nothing to me.

    I have read the manual :(

    It looks like the manual and the hardware do not match.

    Franly I find this misleading. To issue the same type number to hardware that differs so much.


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Markus Reschke on Wed May 14 16:47:49 2014
    Hello Markus,

    On Tuesday May 13 2014 18:31, you wrote to me:

    There are two major hardware versions of the DIR-655 with different firmwares. The older doesn't support IPv6 and can't be updated, i.e. D-Link doesn't provide an update. The Rev 2 model supports IPv6.

    Arghh! That is misleading... :-(

    I had the older model and sold it because of that.

    At least you got some money back for it.

    I wouldn't recommend D-Link routers anyway unless the specific type is supported by OpenWRT. D-Link does a lousy job maintaining the
    firmwares and WLAN reliability is quite poor.

    I will keep that in mind next time I need to buy a router.


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Björn Felten on Wed May 14 16:54:49 2014
    Hello Bj”rn,

    On Tuesday May 13 2014 19:41, you wrote to Markus Reschke:

    D-Link does a lousy job maintaining the firmwares and WLAN
    reliability is quite poor.

    Plus they have a long history of overheating.

    My only experience with D-Link is a access point that just died on me after a bout a year. Possibly overheating... I do not remember the type, it was a looong time ago, it was 10 Mbps only.

    I did like the SNMP utility to manage it though. One did not have to go through hoops to find the IP to access it with a http client. The AP got its address by DHCP and the SNMP management utility would scan the LAN for it...


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Markus Reschke@2:240/1661 to Michiel van der Vlist on Wed May 14 17:50:40 2014
    Hi Michiel!

    May 14 16:47 2014, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Markus Reschke:


    MvdV> Arghh! That is misleading... :-(

    It's not just that router. D-Link's IPv6 strategy was misleading totally. They gave users the impression that they will add IPv6 to the more expensive routers but that never happened. Instead they sold new models (slightly upgraded hardware) which drove some users away from D-Link.

    I had the older model and sold it because of that.

    MvdV> At least you got some money back for it.

    Yep, and I sold nearly all D-Link stuff. Also had some "professional" APs and a lot of WLAN problems. Debugging pointed to a very poor firmware and bad choice of default values. Sorry, but selling semi-professional stuff with so much issues is a show stopper. The APs were about 150 Euros with a warranty of 11 years. Guess what, D-Link dropped the firmware support for those APs quite soon. So I replaced all D-Link stuff with TP-Link running OpenWRT. Much more control and features, and a reliable WLAN.

    I wouldn't recommend D-Link routers anyway unless the specific type
    is supported by OpenWRT. D-Link does a lousy job maintaining the
    firmwares and WLAN reliability is quite poor.

    MvdV> I will keep that in mind next time I need to buy a router.

    The best current solutions for IPv6 are TP-Link with OpenWRT or some Mini-PCs like from PC Engines running OpenWRT or pfSense. There are some new SOHO routers with dual core ARMs around 1GHz on the market now, but I would wait until they are supported by OpenWRT. They're also quite expensive at the moment. I think that will change soon because all chipset vendors are moving to dual/quadcore ARMs. So will the router vendors. The last generation was a 560/680MHz CPU, 128MB RAM and 8-128MB flash. The new one is a dual core ARM, 1GHz, 256MB RAM and 128MB flash. That's ideal for running also some extra tasks like asterisk or maybe husky ;-)

    cu,
    Markus

    ---
    * Origin: *** theca tabellaria *** (2:240/1661)
  • From Björn Felten@2:203/2 to Michiel van der Vlist on Wed May 14 19:13:58 2014
    MvdV> I did like the SNMP utility to manage it though. One did not have to go
    MvdV> through hoops to find the IP to access it with a http client. The AP got
    MvdV> its address by DHCP and the SNMP management utility would scan the LAN
    MvdV> for it...

    Yes, indeed.

    The software department of D-Link has always been top of the art. Unfortunately the hardware people they hired were bottom of the art.

    --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
    * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)
  • From Joe Delahaye@1:249/303 to Michiel van der Vlist on Wed May 14 16:42:34 2014
    Re: Comcast & IPv6
    By: Michiel van der Vlist to Joe Delahaye on Wed May 14 2014 16:30:51

    Then I fear you ran into the same problem as Markus. You probably have the older version of the DIR-655 with the hardware that does not support IPv6.

    I do not know how you feel about this, but if it were to happen to me, I would be severely disappointed. Any chance of getting your money back?

    Not a chance of that <G> I got it at an auction sale. Cost me $10 or less.


    The help tech in email did not know how to answer it. One of these
    days I will call the number and see what is going on. Strange thing
    is that this is much newer then my previous router, and it had IPv6
    configuration. Aloso a DLink.

    So why did you by a new one in the first place?

    It was there, and it was newer then what I had <G> I still have it. It is a DIR-615
    --- SBBSecho 2.27-Win32
    * Origin: The Lions Den BBS, Trenton, On, CDN (1:249/303)
  • From Joe Delahaye@1:249/303 to Michiel van der Vlist on Wed May 14 16:44:49 2014
    Re: Comcast & IPv6
    By: Michiel van der Vlist to Joe Delahaye on Wed May 14 2014 16:36:01

    Hardware version A2 and firmwar version 1.37NA

    That means nothing to me.

    I have read the manual :(

    It looks like the manual and the hardware do not match.

    So it seems.


    Franly I find this misleading. To issue the same type number to hardware that differs so much.

    You mean the model number? That is why they have version n umbers on them. Makes it a bit difficult indeed.
    --- SBBSecho 2.27-Win32
    * Origin: The Lions Den BBS, Trenton, On, CDN (1:249/303)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Markus Reschke on Thu May 15 11:08:28 2014
    Hello Markus,

    On Wednesday May 14 2014 17:50, you wrote to me:

    MvdV>> Arghh! That is misleading... :-(

    It's not just that router. D-Link's IPv6 strategy was misleading
    totally. They gave users the impression that they will add IPv6 to the more expensive routers but that never happened. Instead they sold new models (slightly upgraded hardware) which drove some users away from D-Link.

    But only "some". I guess they figured they can make more profit by selling new hardware than by providing customers with free firmware updates. And they get away with it because IPv6 is not yet a hot issue. It is only a small minority of their custonmers who know what it is all about and as long as it works, who cares...

    They would not get away with it if it was something more visible, like delivering only half the advertised speed, but missing IPv6? Only a handful of nerds care...

    I had the older model and sold it because of that.

    MvdV>> At least you got some money back for it.

    Yep, and I sold nearly all D-Link stuff. Also had some "professional"
    APs and a lot of WLAN problems. Debugging pointed to a very poor
    firmware and bad choice of default values. Sorry, but selling semi-professional stuff with so much issues is a show stopper. The APs were about 150 Euros with a warranty of 11 years.

    11 years? Warranties that long always make me suspicious. How can they guarantee the company still exista at all 11 years from now?

    Guess what, D-Link dropped the firmware support for those APs quite
    soon. So I replaced all D-Link stuff with TP-Link running OpenWRT.
    Much more control and features, and a reliable WLAN.

    Good choice I'd say.

    The best current solutions for IPv6 are TP-Link with OpenWRT or some Mini-PCs like from PC Engines running OpenWRT or pfSense. There are
    some new SOHO routers with dual core ARMs around 1GHz on the market
    now, but I would wait until they are supported by OpenWRT. They're
    also quite expensive at the moment. I think that will change soon
    because all chipset vendors are moving to dual/quadcore ARMs. So will
    the router vendors. The last generation was a 560/680MHz CPU, 128MB
    RAM and 8-128MB flash. The new one is a dual core ARM, 1GHz, 256MB RAM
    and 128MB flash. That's ideal for running also some extra tasks like asterisk or maybe husky ;-)

    I think I will stick with my good old faithful WRT54GL with OpenWrt a bit longer and wait for the prices of the new hardware to drop some more... ;-)


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Joe Delahaye on Thu May 15 11:52:29 2014
    Hello Joe,

    On Wednesday May 14 2014 16:42, you wrote to me:

    I do not know how you feel about this, but if it were to happen
    to me, I would be severely disappointed. Any chance of getting
    your money back?

    Not a chance of that <G> I got it at an auction sale. Cost me $10 or less.

    Ah well, in that case the damage is limited. ;-) Just dump it.

    So why did you by a new one in the first place?

    It was there, and it was newer then what I had <G>

    Ah, you wanted the newer model, just for the sake of having the newer model.

    I still have it. It is a DIR-615

    So put in back ik place and enjoy IPv6. ;-)


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Joe Delahaye on Thu May 15 11:57:08 2014
    Hello Joe,

    On Wednesday May 14 2014 16:44, you wrote to me:

    Franly I find this misleading. To issue the same type number to
    hardware that differs so much.

    You mean the model number?

    Yes.

    That is why they have version numbers on them. Makes it a bit
    difficult indeed.

    More than difficult: misleading.


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Joe Delahaye@1:249/303 to Michiel van der Vlist on Thu May 15 09:53:39 2014
    Re: Comcast & IPv6
    By: Michiel van der Vlist to Joe Delahaye on Thu May 15 2014 11:52:29

    Ah, you wanted the newer model, just for the sake of having the newer model.

    No, not just that. The newer model has a higher speed as well <G>, and a bit of a stronger signal

    I still have it. It is a DIR-615

    So put in back ik place and enjoy IPv6. ;-)

    I dont think that my ISP is much interested in IPv6. Biggest carrier in Canada, and they will do what they want to do, and not what they need to do. Lots of promises, but that is all it ever amounts to. My friend lives in a mobile home park. He asked 10 years ago when they would put DSL into the park,
    The answer was always 'in about a year' It is still not there. He has switched to cable.
    --- SBBSecho 2.27-Win32
    * Origin: The Lions Den BBS, Trenton, On, CDN (1:249/303)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Joe Delahaye on Thu May 15 16:17:11 2014
    Hello Joe,

    On Thursday May 15 2014 09:53, you wrote to me:

    Ah, you wanted the newer model, just for the sake of having the
    newer model.

    No, not just that. The newer model has a higher speed as well <G>,
    and a bit of a stronger signal

    I see...

    I still have it. It is a DIR-615

    So put it back in place and enjoy IPv6. ;-)

    I dont think that my ISP is much interested in IPv6.

    You don't have to wait for them. Get a tunnel from SixXs or he.net. It works!

    Biggest carrier in Canada, and they will do what they want to do, and
    not what they need to do.

    The arrogance of power...

    Lots of promises, but that is all it ever amounts to.

    Sounds familiar... :-(

    My friend lives in a mobile home park. He asked 10 years ago when
    they would put DSL into the park, The answer was always 'in about a
    year' It is still not there. He has switched to cable.

    Then he is lucky the cable guys cover it.


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Joe Delahaye@1:249/303 to Michiel van der Vlist on Thu May 15 12:22:58 2014
    Re: Comcast & IPv6
    By: Michiel van der Vlist to Joe Delahaye on Thu May 15 2014 16:17:11

    You don't have to wait for them. Get a tunnel from SixXs or he.net. It works!

    Yeah, IU've been reading about that from you guys

    Biggest carrier in Canada, and they will do what they want to do,
    and not what they need to do.

    The arrogance of power...

    Indeed. You can switch, but then you pretty much are stuck with another giant, who also does what is best for their bottom line. There are some smaller ISPs here, and I may in the future switch. Trouble is that I astill have to go over the same lines and through the same switches as with my present ISP, since they control the phone lines, etc.

    Lots of promises, but that is all it ever amounts to.

    Sounds familiar... :-(

    My friend lives in a mobile home park. He asked 10 years ago when
    they would put DSL into the park, The answer was always 'in about a
    year' It is still not there. He has switched to cable.

    Then he is lucky the cable guys cover it.

    It was a choice he did not want to make, but if he wanted high speed it was the only choice open to him, other then microwave.
    --- SBBSecho 2.27-Win32
    * Origin: The Lions Den BBS, Trenton, On, CDN (1:249/303)
  • From Markus Reschke@2:240/1661 to Michiel van der Vlist on Thu May 15 18:37:14 2014
    Hi Michiel!

    May 15 11:08 2014, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Markus Reschke:

    MvdV> They would not get away with it if it was something more visible,
    MvdV> like delivering only half the advertised speed, but missing IPv6?
    MvdV> Only a handful of nerds care...

    Unfortunately true. And I also got the strong feeling that IPv6 support is going to be some kind of lottery for users. There are several methods to get IPv6 to the CPE, several ways how addresses and prefixes are assigned, and there's the issue how addresses and prefixes are assigned in the LAN. Also we have to deal with subprefix delegation to other routers in the LAN. I doubt that any vendor will support all methods and get everything right. And all that will overwhelm most users. One public IPv4 address and NAT is simple to understand. But with IPv6 users get public addresses inside their LAN. They'll panic :-)

    MvdV> 11 years? Warranties that long always make me suspicious. How can
    MvdV> they guarantee the company still exista at all 11 years from now?

    That warranty was for the "high end" SOHO stuff for a short period of time, but D-Link decreased the warrenty down to 3 years IIRC. I didn't give it any attention anyway because after two or three years they wouldn't be able to provide spare devices. So you would get something similar out of the current models.

    MvdV> I think I will stick with my good old faithful WRT54GL with OpenWrt
    MvdV> a bit longer and wait for the prices of the new hardware to drop
    MvdV> some more... ;-)

    Me too, but with a recent TP-Link ;-)

    cu,
    Markus

    ---
    * Origin: *** theca tabellaria *** (2:240/1661)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Joe Delahaye on Fri May 16 01:06:32 2014
    Hello Joe,

    On Thursday May 15 2014 12:22, you wrote to me:

    You don't have to wait for them. Get a tunnel from SixXs or
    he.net. It works!

    Yeah, IU've been reading about that from you guys

    So how about it? Have you checked the he.net web page?

    My friend lives in a mobile home park. He asked 10 years ago
    when they would put DSL into the park, The answer was always 'in
    about a year' It is still not there. He has switched to cable.

    Then he is lucky the cable guys cover it.

    It was a choice he did not want to make, but if he wanted high speed
    it was the only choice open to him, other then microwave.

    Microwave? I am not sure what that means in this context.

    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Markus Reschke on Fri May 16 01:08:28 2014
    Hello Markus,

    On Thursday May 15 2014 18:37, you wrote to me:

    MvdV>> They would not get away with it if it was something more
    MvdV>> visible, like delivering only half the advertised speed, but
    MvdV>> missing IPv6? Only a handful of nerds care...

    Unfortunately true.

    Yes and no. If the ISPs and router guys do it right, the Joe the plumber never needs to know. It just works.. ;-)

    And I also got the strong feeling that IPv6 support is going to be
    some kind of lottery for users.

    Not if "they" do it right.

    There are several methods to get IPv6 to the CPE,

    Isn't that over once native IPv6 becomes the rule rather than the exception?

    several ways how addresses and prefixes are assigned, and there's the issue how addresses and prefixes are assigned in the LAN.

    Indeedd, but if done right, Joe the Plumber need not be bothered with that.

    Also we have to deal with subprefix delegation to other routers in the LAN.

    That is still unchartered territory for me. I have just one router and one /64 in use. It is enough for me right now, but I can see that having more than one subnet might be useful in some situations. I will cross that bridge when I get to it.

    I doubt that any vendor will support all methods and get everything
    right.

    Of course they won't. Mistakes will be made.

    And all that will overwhelm most users. One public IPv4 address and
    NAT is simple to understand. But with IPv6 users get public addresses inside their LAN. They'll panic :-)

    You are a pessimist. ;-) I think it will not be that bad. Joe the Plumber has no idea what a LAN is. For him the modem/router is just the box that gives him access to the internet. His desktop, his smartphone, his tablet is connected to the internet. He doesn't know about IP numbers - v4 or v6 - he just knows that he is connected. He doesn't know that when the umbellical cord to the Internet is cut, his devices can still talk to each other.

    Joe the plumber never set up a LAN that was NOT connected to the Internet.

    They can with IPv4 and they still will be able with IPv6. But Joe the Plunber won't know and won't need to know.



    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Joe Delahaye@1:249/303 to Michiel van der Vlist on Thu May 15 21:34:51 2014
    Re: Comcast & IPv6
    By: Michiel van der Vlist to Joe Delahaye on Fri May 16 2014 01:06:32

    Yeah, IU've been reading about that from you guys

    So how about it? Have you checked the he.net web page?

    Not yet. I've been following Markus's writings on modems. I may just follow his advice. In fact I was already looking at those TP routers the other day.


    My friend lives in a mobile home park. He asked 10 years ago
    when they would put DSL into the park, The answer was always 'in
    about a year' It is still not there. He has switched to cable.

    Then he is lucky the cable guys cover it.

    It was a choice he did not want to make, but if he wanted high speed
    it was the only choice open to him, other then microwave.

    Microwave? I am not sure what that means in this context.

    Microwave I think anyway. You point a dish of some sort, to a central transmitter which gives you High Speed Internet of some sort. It is more expensive, but for people in rural areas who also do not have cable, that is the only option, other then POTS
    --- SBBSecho 2.27-Win32
    * Origin: The Lions Den BBS, Trenton, On, CDN (1:249/303)
  • From Alexey Vissarionov@2:5020/545 to Michiel van der Vlist on Fri May 16 08:50:00 2014
    Good ${greeting_time}, Michiel!

    16 May 2014 01:06:32, you wrote to Joe Delahaye:

    My friend lives in a mobile home park. He asked 10 years ago
    when they would put DSL into the park, The answer was always 'in
    about a year' It is still not there. He has switched to cable.
    Then he is lucky the cable guys cover it.
    It was a choice he did not want to make, but if he wanted high speed
    it was the only choice open to him, other then microwave.
    Microwave? I am not sure what that means in this context.

    WiFi, I'd guess... :-)

    TWIMC: my node (2:5020/545) is finally reachable via native ${areatag}.


    --
    Alexey V. Vissarionov aka Gremlin from Kremlin
    gremlin.ru!gremlin; +vii-cmiii-ccxxix-lxxix-xlii

    ... god@universe:~ # cvs up && make world
    --- /bin/vi
    * Origin: http://openwall.com/Owl (2:5020/545)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Alexey Vissarionov on Fri May 16 10:36:33 2014
    Hello Alexey,

    On Friday May 16 2014 08:50, you wrote to me:

    TWIMC: my node (2:5020/545) is finally reachable via native
    ${areatag}.

    10:35 [3576] BEGIN standalone, binkd/1.1a-49/Win32 -p -P5020/545 binkd.cfg
    10:35 [3576] creating a poll for 2:5020/545@fidonet (`d' flavour)
    10:35 [3576] clientmgr started
    + 10:35 [3252] call to 2:5020/545@fidonet
    10:35 [3252] trying fido.gremlin.ru [2a01:4f8:140:9ffb:900d:f001:dead:f001]...
    10:35 [3252] connected
    + 10:35 [3252] outgoing session with 2a01:4f8:140:9ffb:900d:f001:dead:f001
    - 10:35 [3252] OPT CRAM-MD5-4d8c73bf517a98277627aab50dbab6ee
    + 10:35 [3252] Remote requests MD mode
    - 10:35 [3252] SYS Fido.Gremlin.RU
    - 10:35 [3252] ZYZ Gremlin from Kremlin


    Congratulations! What took you so long? ;-)

    Who is your provider? Connection method? DSL? Cable? Other?


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Alexey Vissarionov on Fri May 16 14:04:00 2014
    Hello Alexey,

    Friday May 16 2014 10:36, I wrote to you:

    10:35 [3252] trying fido.gremlin.ru [2a01:4f8:140:9ffb:900d:f001:dead:f001]...
    ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^
    Good foot, dead foot?


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Michiel van der Vlist on Fri May 16 15:02:28 2014
    Hi Michiel,

    On 2014-05-16 14:04:00, you wrote to Alexey Vissarionov:

    MvdV> @MSGID: 2:280/5555 5375fef8
    MvdV> @REPLY: 2:280/5555 5375ce75
    MvdV> @TID: FMail-W32-1.68.2.63-B20140508
    MvdV> @RFC-X-No-Archive: Yes
    MvdV> @TZUTC: 0200
    MvdV> @CHRS: CP850 2
    MvdV> Hello Alexey,

    MvdV> Friday May 16 2014 10:36, I wrote to you:

    10:35 [3252] trying fido.gremlin.ru
    [2a01:4f8:140:9ffb:900d:f001:dead:f001]...
    MvdV> ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^
    MvdV> Good foot, dead foot?

    or:

    Good fool, dead fool?


    Bye, Wilfred.

    --- FMail-W32-1.68.3.69-B20140513
    * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Joe Delahaye on Fri May 16 14:30:58 2014
    Hello Joe,

    On Thursday May 15 2014 21:34, you wrote to me:

    So how about it? Have you checked the he.net web page?

    Not yet. I've been following Markus's writings on modems. I may just follow his advice. In fact I was already looking at those TP routers
    the other day.

    Great.

    Microwave? I am not sure what that means in this context.

    Microwave I think anyway. You point a dish of some sort, to a central transmitter which gives you High Speed Internet of some sort.

    That is available here too. The central transmitter is some 65000 klicks up! ;-)

    It is more expensive, but for people in rural areas who also do not
    have cable, that is the only option, other then POTS

    POTS is fading out here. Very few providers still offer dial-up Internet.

    Internet via satellite is available all over Europe though, and yes, it is more expensive than a fixed line. But it is affordable if you do not need top speed.


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Markus Reschke@2:240/1661 to Michiel van der Vlist on Fri May 16 17:59:46 2014
    Hi Michiel!

    May 16 01:08 2014, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Markus Reschke:

    There are several methods to get IPv6 to the CPE,

    MvdV> Isn't that over once native IPv6 becomes the rule rather than the
    MvdV> exception?

    It depends on the methods choosen by the providers. If they agree on a few common types it would make things more simple. Take classic PPPoE for example. Since PPP supports the transport of multiple protocols PPP can transport also IPv6 in parallel with IPv4. But you could also use a second PPPoE session for IPv6.

    Another issue will be IPv4, i.e. the lack of addresses. That's going to reverse the current situation. Youl'll have native IPv6 but IPv4 is tunnelled. One strategy is to tunnel IPv4 to the provider's NAT platform which will share public IPv4 addresses.

    several ways how addresses and prefixes are assigned, and there's the
    issue how addresses and prefixes are assigned in the LAN.

    MvdV> Indeedd, but if done right, Joe the Plumber need not be bothered
    MvdV> with that.

    There are DHCP, SLAAC and a combination of both. If the provider gives a cheatsheet to Joe, he might be able to follow that and configure his router. Haven't seen much providers doing that. For DTAG VoIP I had to reverse engineer their VoIP gateway address plan to be able to create a secure config for my SIP gateway. Very professional ;-(

    Also we have to deal with subprefix delegation to other routers in
    the LAN.

    MvdV> That is still unchartered territory for me. I have just one router
    MvdV> and one /64 in use. It is enough for me right now, but I can see
    MvdV> that having more than one subnet might be useful in some
    MvdV> situations. I will cross that bridge when I get to it.

    Native IPv6 comes with a /48 or /56 for the LAN(s) and a /64 for the transfer network. And the next marketing hype is IoT (Internet of Things) which I wouldn't place in my normal LAN.

    Regards,
    Markus

    ---
    * Origin: *** theca tabellaria *** (2:240/1661)
  • From Markus Reschke@2:240/1661 to Michiel van der Vlist on Fri May 16 18:40:40 2014
    Hello Michiel!

    May 16 14:04 2014, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Alexey Vissarionov:

    10:35 [3252] trying fido.gremlin.ru
    [2a01:4f8:140:9ffb:900d:f001:dead:f001]...
    MvdV> ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^
    MvdV> Good foot, dead foot?

    I prefer dead:beaf ;-)

    Regards,
    Markus

    ---
    * Origin: *** theca tabellaria *** (2:240/1661)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Wilfred van Velzen on Fri May 16 18:39:49 2014
    Hello Wilfred,

    On Friday May 16 2014 15:02, you wrote to me:

    MvdV>> Friday May 16 2014 10:36, I wrote to you:

    10:35 [3252] trying fido.gremlin.ru
    [2a01:4f8:140:9ffb:900d:f001:dead:f001]...
    MvdV>> ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^
    MvdV>> Good foot, dead foot?

    or:

    Good fool, dead fool?

    Yes, I think that is better. I remember the old mechanical typewriters that had no key for the digit '1'. One has to use the small letter 'l' instead.

    So 1=l. Makes sense.


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Michiel van der Vlist on Fri May 16 19:58:42 2014
    Hi,

    On 2014-05-16 18:39:49, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Wilfred van Velzen:
    about: "Comcast & IPv6":

    10:35 [3252] trying fido.gremlin.ru
    [2a01:4f8:140:9ffb:900d:f001:dead:f001]...
    MvdV>>> ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^
    MvdV>>> Good foot, dead foot?

    or:

    Good fool, dead fool?

    MvdV> Yes, I think that is better. I remember the old mechanical typewriters that
    MvdV> had no key for the digit '1'. One has to use the small letter 'l' instead.

    MvdV> So 1=l. Makes sense.

    Either way, I can't find a reference to both with google...

    Bye, Wilfred.


    --- FMail-W32-1.68.3.69-B20140513
    * Origin: Native IPv6 connectable node (2:280/464)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Markus Reschke on Fri May 16 22:13:57 2014
    Hello Markus,

    On Friday May 16 2014 17:59, you wrote to me:

    There are several methods to get IPv6 to the CPE,

    MvdV>> Isn't that over once native IPv6 becomes the rule rather than
    MvdV>> the exception?

    It depends on the methods choosen by the providers. If they agree on a
    few common types it would make things more simple. Take classic PPPoE
    for example. Since PPP supports the transport of multiple protocols
    PPP can transport also IPv6 in parallel with IPv4. But you could also
    use a second PPPoE session for IPv6.

    Here the provider give preconfigred modem/routers to their customers. That way the customers need not be bothered with these details.

    Another issue will be IPv4, i.e. the lack of addresses.

    One thing us for sure: the use of CGNAT is unavoidable. The ordinaty customer will not get a public IPv4 address. If he wants to run servers, he will have to make to with IPv6 or pay extra for the public IPv4 address.

    That's going to reverse the current situation. Youl'll have native
    IPv6 but IPv4 is tunnelled. One strategy is to tunnel IPv4 to the provider's NAT platform which will share public IPv4 addresses.

    Or it wil be fully dual stack. Again preconfigured modem/routers will see to it that oe the Plunm,ber need not be bothered with that.

    several ways how addresses and prefixes are assigned, and
    there's the issue how addresses and prefixes are assigned in the
    LAN.

    MvdV>> Indeedd, but if done right, Joe the Plumber need not be
    MvdV>> bothered with that.

    There are DHCP, SLAAC and a combination of both. If the provider gives
    a cheatsheet to Joe, he might be able to follow that and configure his router. Haven't seen much providers doing that.

    I expect Kees and Wilfred can tell you more anout it. The both have native IPv6. I did not hear them about difficulties configuring their CPE.

    For DTAG VoIP I had to reverse engineer their VoIP gateway address
    plan to be able to create a secure config for my SIP gateway. Very professional ;-(

    Hmm...

    Also we have to deal with subprefix delegation to other routers
    in the LAN.

    MvdV>> That is still unchartered territory for me. I have just one
    MvdV>> router and one /64 in use. It is enough for me right now, but I
    MvdV>> can see that having more than one subnet might be useful in
    MvdV>> some situations. I will cross that bridge when I get to it.

    Native IPv6 comes with a /48 or /56 for the LAN(s)

    Or perhaps just a /60.

    and a /64 for the transfer network. And the next marketing hype is IoT (Internet of Things) which I wouldn't place in my normal LAN.

    Good point, but I don't know if I want my fridge and washing machine on the net anyway...


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Alexey Vissarionov on Fri May 16 22:24:11 2014
    Hello Alexey,

    Friday May 16 2014 10:36, I wrote to you:


    10:35 [3576] BEGIN standalone, binkd/1.1a-49/Win32 -p -P5020/545 binkd.cfg 10:35 [3576] creating a poll for 2:5020/545@fidonet (`d' flavour) 10:35 [3576] clientmgr started + 10:35 [3252] call to 2:5020/545@fidonet 10:35 [3252] trying fido.gremlin.ru [2a01:4f8:140:9ffb:900d:f001:dead:f001]... 10:35 [3252] connected +

    But now:

    + 22:21 [1236] call to 2:5020/545@fidonet
    22:21 [1236] trying fido.gremlin.ru [2a01:4f8:140:9ffb:900d:f001:dead:f001]...
    ? 22:21 [1236] connection to 2:5020/545@fidonet failed: {W32 API error 10061}
    Connection refused

    That was a short party...


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Michiel van der Vlist on Fri May 16 22:45:23 2014
    Hi,

    On 2014-05-16 22:13:57, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Markus Reschke:
    about: "Comcast & IPv6":

    There are DHCP, SLAAC and a combination of both. If the provider
    gives a cheatsheet to Joe, he might be able to follow that and
    configure his router. Haven't seen much providers doing that.

    MvdV> I expect Kees and Wilfred can tell you more anout it. The both have native
    MvdV> IPv6. I did not hear them about difficulties configuring their CPE.

    So far I haven't done any special configuration. (except some port forwarding)

    The modem came pre-configured for IPv6, and it was already turned on in my OS on my computers.

    Bye, Wilfred.


    --- FMail-W32-1.68.3.69-B20140513
    * Origin: Native IPv6 connectable node (2:280/464)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Michiel van der Vlist on Fri May 16 22:48:33 2014
    Hi,

    On 2014-05-16 22:24:11, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Alexey Vissarionov:
    about: "Comcast & IPv6":

    10:35 [3576] BEGIN standalone, binkd/1.1a-49/Win32 -p -P5020/545
    binkd.cfg 10:35 [3576] creating a poll for 2:5020/545@fidonet (`d'
    flavour) 10:35 [3576] clientmgr started + 10:35 [3252] call to
    2:5020/545@fidonet 10:35 [3252] trying fido.gremlin.ru
    [2a01:4f8:140:9ffb:900d:f001:dead:f001]... 10:35 [3252] connected +

    MvdV> But now:

    MvdV> + 22:21 [1236] call to 2:5020/545@fidonet
    MvdV> 22:21 [1236] trying fido.gremlin.ru
    MvdV> [2a01:4f8:140:9ffb:900d:f001:dead:f001]... ? 22:21 [1236] connection to
    MvdV> 2:5020/545@fidonet failed: {W32 API error 10061} Connection refused

    MvdV> That was a short party...

    I don't get a connetion on IPv4 either, so I don't think it's a specific IPv6 problem...

    Bye, Wilfred.


    --- FMail-W32-1.68.3.69-B20140513
    * Origin: Native IPv6 connectable node (2:280/464)
  • From Markus Reschke@2:240/1661 to Michiel van der Vlist on Fri May 16 23:00:20 2014
    Hi Michiel!

    May 16 22:13 2014, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Markus Reschke:

    MvdV> Here the provider give preconfigred modem/routers to their
    MvdV> customers. That way the customers need not be bothered with these
    MvdV> details.

    Some sell you a branded router with a simple UI and others force you to use their official box and won't even tell you the PPP credentials (configured via TR-069). BTW, there's a discussion about making "Zwangsrouter" illegal and it seems we'll get a decison in favour of the customers.

    MvdV> Good point, but I don't know if I want my fridge and washing
    MvdV> machine on the net anyway...

    Or the central heating for a warm welcome ;-)

    Regards,
    Markus

    ---
    * Origin: *** theca tabellaria *** (2:240/1661)
  • From Kees van Eeten@2:280/5003.4 to Wilfred van Velzen on Fri May 16 23:46:46 2014
    Hello Wilfred!

    16 May 14 22:45, you wrote to Michiel van der Vlist:

    MvdV>> I expect Kees and Wilfred can tell you more anout it. The both have
    MvdV>> native IPv6. I did not hear them about difficulties configuring
    MvdV>> their CPE.

    So far I haven't done any special configuration. (except some port forwarding)

    The modem came pre-configured for IPv6, and it was already turned on in my OS on my computers.

    I had a tunnel first that extended into my primary firewall/router system.
    When changed to ADSL only, I got native IPV6. It came with a, probably,
    preconfigured router, but I used my own (of the same brand) as it was a
    higher numbered model, with more options.

    Getting it to work was nor really a problem, I needed some help for probing
    the forwarding rules to services on the local lan.

    I still have not solved creating subnets behind the firewall/router machine,
    it may have to do with the firewall in the router tha is connected to
    the ISP. Although the OS of the router is Linux based, the internal
    firewall is based on separate software.

    Some day I will get it working. For now the systems on the second subnet
    will have to do without IPv6.

    Kees

    --- FPD v2.9.040207 GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5
    * Origin: As for me, all I know is that, I know nothing. (2:280/5003.4)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Wilfred van Velzen on Sat May 17 00:29:29 2014
    Hello Wilfred,

    On Friday May 16 2014 22:48, you wrote to me:

    MvdV>> 22:21 [1236] trying fido.gremlin.ru
    MvdV>> [2a01:4f8:140:9ffb:900d:f001:dead:f001]... ? 22:21 [1236]
    MvdV>> connection to 2:5020/545@fidonet failed: {W32 API error 10061}
    MvdV>> Connection refused

    I don't get a connetion on IPv4 either,

    Same here.

    so I don't think it's a specific IPv6 problem...

    Well, he may have crashed his system while tuning the IPv6 part. Other than that, probably not...


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Michiel van der Vlist on Sat May 17 12:30:32 2014
    Hi,

    On 2014-05-17 00:29:29, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Wilfred van Velzen:
    about: "Comcast & IPv6":

    MvdV>>> 22:21 [1236] trying fido.gremlin.ru
    MvdV>>> [2a01:4f8:140:9ffb:900d:f001:dead:f001]... ? 22:21 [1236]
    MvdV>>> connection to 2:5020/545@fidonet failed: {W32 API error 10061}
    MvdV>>> Connection refused

    I don't get a connetion on IPv4 either,

    MvdV> Same here.

    so I don't think it's a specific IPv6 problem...

    MvdV> Well, he may have crashed his system while tuning the IPv6 part. Other than
    MvdV> that, probably not...

    Still not fixed. And no incomming connections either, so it's not a "dyn" problem...

    Bye, Wilfred.


    --- FMail-W32-1.68.3.69-B20140513
    * Origin: Native IPv6 connectable node (2:280/464)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Markus Reschke on Sun May 18 00:43:02 2014
    Hello Markus,

    On Friday May 16 2014 23:00, you wrote to me:

    MvdV>> Here the provider give preconfigred modem/routers to their
    MvdV>> customers. That way the customers need not be bothered with
    MvdV>> these details.

    Some sell you a branded router with a simple UI and others force you
    to use their official box and won't even tell you the PPP credentials (configured via TR-069).

    It is more or less the same here. The situation is a bit different between teh cable- and the DSLproviders. They all allow you to use your own router, but it is not all that easy to get around the modem in the case of the cable providers. They supply a modem with integrated router, but they will put it in bridge mode on request, so you can use your own router. woth DSL you can use your owm modem/router if you want.

    BTW, there's a discussion about making "Zwangsrouter" illegal and it
    seems we'll get a decison in favour of the customers.

    That is good news, but of course it will only affect a smal minoritty. Mostusers are perfectly happy with their preconfigured CPE.

    MvdV>> Good point, but I don't know if I want my fridge and washing
    MvdV>> machine on the net anyway...

    Or the central heating for a warm welcome ;-)

    Yeah, that too... ;-)


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Alexey Vissarionov@2:5020/545 to Michiel van der Vlist on Sun May 18 10:49:00 2014
    Good ${greeting_time}, Michiel!

    16 May 2014 14:04:00, you wrote to me:

    10:35 [3252] trying fido.gremlin.ru
    [2a01:4f8:140:9ffb:900d:f001:dead:f001]...
    ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^
    Good foot, dead foot?

    There's 1 (l), not 7... so "good fool - dead fool" :-)


    --
    Alexey V. Vissarionov aka Gremlin from Kremlin
    gremlin.ru!gremlin; +vii-cmiii-ccxxix-lxxix-xlii

    ... :wq!
    --- /bin/vi
    * Origin: http://openwall.com/Owl (2:5020/545)
  • From Alexey Vissarionov@2:5020/545 to Michiel van der Vlist on Sun May 18 10:51:50 2014
    Good ${greeting_time}, Michiel!

    16 May 2014 22:24:10, you wrote to me:

    + 22:21 [1236] call to 2:5020/545@fidonet
    22:21 [1236] trying fido.gremlin.ru [2a01:4f8:140:9ffb:900d:f001:dead:f001]...
    ? 22:21 [1236] connection to 2:5020/545@fidonet failed
    That was a short party...

    For some reason, the mailer didn't restart correctly. Fixed for now.


    --
    Alexey V. Vissarionov aka Gremlin from Kremlin
    gremlin.ru!gremlin; +vii-cmiii-ccxxix-lxxix-xlii

    ... :wq!
    --- /bin/vi
    * Origin: http://openwall.com/Owl (2:5020/545)
  • From Markus Reschke@2:240/1661 to Michiel van der Vlist on Sun May 18 13:07:34 2014
    Hi Michiel!

    May 18 00:43 2014, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Markus Reschke:

    BTW, there's a discussion about making "Zwangsrouter" illegal and it
    seems we'll get a decison in favour of the customers.

    MvdV> That is good news, but of course it will only affect a smal
    MvdV> minoritty. Mostusers are perfectly happy with their preconfigured
    MvdV> CPE.

    Recently there was an security problem with AVM's Fritzbox routers which are used by some providers as Zwangsrouter (running a modified firmware, some features can't be configured by the customer). Most Fritzboxes got two FXS and a BRI port for VoIP and PBX applications and some also got a DECT basestation integrated. The security issue is that someone could retrieve passwords remotely. That was used to reconfigure the VoIP part and allowed third parties to make telephone calls via the hacked Fritzbox for free, i.e. paid by the Fritzbox's user. AVM fixed the problem and released new firmwares, but the enforced routers got their updates a few days later because of the modified firmware versions.

    If you own the router, you'll have to pay those calls. We got a law about liability for bad products but it doesn't include pecuniary losses. And you know those EULAs.

    And what about the users with an enforced router which is owned by the provider? At first the providers told the involved customers that they (the customers) have to pay. When the security issue went public in the main media and customers complained about the enforced routers the providers backed down. It was one of those famous "without any prejudice" back downs to avoid a leading decision by a court. So we still don't know if the provider is reliable for any damages caused by his enforced router.

    There's a similar problem with the cloudification of SOHO routers. Who will pay the bill if the vendor's cloud is hacked and therefore your router too?

    Regards,
    Markus

    ---
    * Origin: *** theca tabellaria *** (2:240/1661)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Markus Reschke on Sun May 18 14:47:05 2014
    Hello Markus,

    On Sunday May 18 2014 13:07, you wrote to me:

    MvdV>> That is good news, but of course it will only affect a small
    MvdV>> minoritty. Most users are perfectly happy with their
    MvdV>> preconfigured CPE.

    Recently there was an security problem with AVM's Fritzbox routers

    I heard about that. But since I do not have a Fritz!box in use, I did not read about all the details.

    The security issue is that someone could retrieve passwords remotely.
    That was used to reconfigure the VoIP part and allowed third parties
    to make telephone calls via the hacked Fritzbox for free, i.e. paid by
    the Fritzbox's user.

    Yes, so I heard.

    Of course these problems are not limited to Fritz!box. Didn't Sisco routers have security problems also recently?

    AVM fixed the problem and released new firmwares, but the enforced
    routers got their updates a few days later because of the modified firmware versions.

    If you own the router, you'll have to pay those calls. We got a law
    about liability for bad products but it doesn't include pecuniary
    losses. And you know those EULAs.

    Here in The Netherlands EULAs do not go above the law.

    And what about the users with an enforced router which is owned by the provider?

    I think it is pretty clear: you can not be held responsible for what you do not control.

    At first the providers told the involved customers that they (the customers) have to pay.

    That would not fly here. The customer had no way to prevent that others made those call. If the provider owns the router and controls it, the provider is responsible. In turn he can try to claim compensation from the manufacturer, but the customer is not responsible.

    When the security issue went public in the main media and customers complained about the enforced routers the providers backed down.

    As they always do...

    It was one of those famous "without any prejudice" back downs to avoid
    a leading decision by a court. So we still don't know if the provider
    is reliable for any damages caused by his enforced router.

    Here there is a procedure to geta case to court anyway. "een proefproces uitlokken". It is usually done by consumer organisations or other to setlle matters like these.

    There's a similar problem with the cloudification of SOHO routers. Who will pay the bill if the vendor's cloud is hacked and therefore your router too?

    Unchartered territory for the lawyers.

    Is there any indications we will see more of these issues with the coming of IPv6?


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    * Origin: 2001:470:1f15:1117::1 (2:280/5555)
  • From Markus Reschke@2:240/1661 to Michiel van der Vlist on Sun May 18 15:32:54 2014
    Hi Michiel!

    May 18 14:47 2014, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Markus Reschke:

    MvdV> Of course these problems are not limited to Fritz!box. Didn't Sisco
    MvdV> routers have security problems also recently?

    We've seen tons of security issues for most vendors the last months. Outdated UPNP code, hidden services, remote access without any credentials, unknown number of CSRFs and so one.

    MvdV> Here in The Netherlands EULAs do not go above the law.

    Neither here, but companies are always trying to intimidate users.

    MvdV> Is there any indications we will see more of these issues with the
    MvdV> coming of IPv6?

    As you wrote, Joe likes to have the ready-to-go box. And IPv6 provides a lot of opportunities for new security issues :-)

    Regards,
    Markus

    ---
    * Origin: *** theca tabellaria *** (2:240/1661)
  • From Joe Delahaye@1:249/303 to Michiel van der Vlist on Wed May 21 21:13:58 2014
    Re: Comcast & IPv6
    By: Michiel van der Vlist to Joe Delahaye on Fri May 16 2014 14:30:58

    Microwave? I am not sure what that means in this context.

    Microwave I think anyway. You point a dish of some sort, to a
    central transmitter which gives you High Speed Internet of some
    sort.

    That is available here too. The central transmitter is some 65000 klicks up! ;-)

    Yes, but that is Satelite. The transmission I am referring to is line of sight only, over the horizon.


    It is more expensive, but for people in rural areas who also do not
    have cable, that is the only option, other then POTS

    POTS is fading out here. Very few providers still offer dial-up Internet.

    Very few people I know still have POTS, but there are some. My provider still offers it. I dont know if I still am able, but originally with my DSL I also had a POTS backup I could use if the DSL failed for some reason.


    Internet via satellite is available all over Europe though, and yes, it is more expensive than a fixed line. But it is affordable if you do not need top speed.

    It is available here, but extremely expensive, and you need a method to upload, as the Sat is only good for download. I think that both ways is available but would be even more expensive.
    --- SBBSecho 2.27-Win32
    * Origin: The Lions Den BBS, Trenton, On, CDN (1:249/303)