Since my isp provider offers only /64 delegation, to get the whole experience I created a HE tunnel and everything worked almost as expected.
Disavantages:
compared to IPV4 the learning curve of IPV6 is very steep, thousand times steeper
even I set an Euopean endpoint there are services which locate me in Canada, prices are in CA$, some streaming services look different, luckily no one until now refuses to start
Doubts:
security? Surely more points of failure
Advantages:
I learnt something new
????
My final thoughts
I heard about IPv6 a long time ago. It seemed like it was going to become the standard in a very short time. If after years the global adoption rate is under 50%, maybe something gone wrong.
For a small house network it is basically useless.
Then blame your ISP. An end customer is supposed to get at least a /56 to support 256 vlans.
Maybe v6 seams more complicated but only because nobody realizes how much duct tape clues v4 together.
If you follow https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7217 secuirty shouldn't be an issue. Ipv6 ports work the same way as v4, you can even set rules targetting both in the firewall.
There are much more points of failure with v4, NAT, CGNAT, port forwardings and more in v4, that are tolerated because of historical reasons
In terms of what you can do and how little trickery you need, IPv6 is literally the dream everybody should wish for.
But because of how long IPv6 is on the market now, still creeping up to 50% adoption rate and yet not having reached that half-way step, there are so many workarounds that everyone who really suffers from how little IPv4 addresses there are having a working solution implemented, one way or the other, I really think IPv6 isn't going to bring anything to the table that isn't a solved problem already. IPv6 would have made a lot of things less painful if implemented 15 years ago, though.
There are still ISPs not providing IPv6 addresses to their customers at all. And there are still internet services out there not providing IPv6 connectivity as well. As long as there is any number not close to 100% on either side, the respective other side has no reason to leap forward. IPv6 availability increases basically by discontinuing old stuff and replacing it with new stuff. We will only ever be able to discontinue IPv4 once both sides, providers and services, just happen to reach a state of simultaneous operations with IPv4+IPv6 due to the sheer passing of time.
Think about what you're going to do with IPv6 /56 at the present time. Let's assume your provider gives you static addresses. Which is not at all a given. There's still a real possibility you get a /56 but that changes every couple of days. But let's assume you have a static /56. Classic private services are self-hosted storage (owncloud, something like that) or VPN. Can you guarantee every hotel or airbnb you might visit next year as IPv6? There's still a chance that, even if your home network has properly routed IPv6 addresses, the places you might visit won't make it possible to access those, which requires you to provide IPv4 with port mapping to hosts behind a NAT for IPv4 anyway. Same problem as every commercially hosted services suffers: Providing IPv6 themselves isn't enough; they rely on every customer to have IPv6 connectivity, too.
As much as it pains me, we need a nearly 100% adoption rate on both sides, and neither side has an incentive to spend additional effort unless the other side does so as well.
But the thing is: If you drop your single IPv6 /64 and use IPv4 only for your home network, you are as much part of the problem as anyone else. And that's why I think IPv6 is a dead horse. Because we've grown to a point where everybody has literally no incentive to change anything.
Pretty much yes. The Swedish agency in charge of mail and electric communications actually came to the same conclusion that only 5-10% of the country use IPv6 a just couple of years ago and they expected over 95% usage by then. And they asked all the ISP what is going on and they all answered: not a single customer want it or ask about it!
And to be honest, IPv6 was invented and released exactly 20years ago and the fact that it isn’t dominating the world since a long time ago would in any other project be seen as a failure.
If you ask me they made a to complex system to solve to small problem that no one (geeks doesn’t count!) understand and no one will understand forever.
If ISPs implemented it properly it would be plug and play for the customer, even with many routers stock firmware.
Tunnels and other workarounds for nonstandard ISPs are really not worth doing since at this time there isn't any content on the v6 Internet that can't also be seen with v4.
How many non IT ppl do you know who can explain ipv4? So neither will they talk with their ISP about ipv4 nor ipv6.
This.
I don't shitting you but believe me, from a operator perspective, home net, large Corp net, or be it data center ipv6 provides so much more benefits and is easier to implement!
It's pretty much plug and play for those whose ISP provide IPv6, even with OpenWRT. Set up wan and wan6 is automatic. Modern browsers and OS prefer ipv6 when enabled and fallback to ipv4 when not available. The ordinary customer doesn't need to do anything else.
I tend to have a pratical approach to these questions.
Is IPV6 better than IPV4? yes
Is IPV6 harder to learn? no
would be the world better if we have only IPV6? yes
Then why after 20 years are we here?
Maybe ignorance, laziness, fear of change, the strong powers or agreements between secret services, but that is the current situation and should be adressed (if someone is interested in).
As end user and as my own small lan admin I didn't see any practical advantage so It's worth spending time on only for personal improvement
I have full dual stack with /56 prefix from my ISP and it works well with OpenWRT.
But running both IPv4 and IPv6 needs more work e.g. if you are using PBR you have to take care of setting it up for IPv4 and IPv6 and yes we still cannot have IPv6 only as there are still IPv4 only sites, heck my phone carrier, Vodafone, is even IPv4 only, I cannot reach IPv6 sites with it
A fair number of providers do no implement IPv6 correctly and/or only hand out a /64 PD.
A lot of stock and other third party firmware do not deal with IPv6 correctly, my provider in France does hand out a /56 PD but the router we are forced to use does not provide bridge mode and hands out only /64 addresses so I cannot have another router behind it in gateway mode.
Conclusion the IPv6 situation is hopeless as long as ISP's do not do a better job with implementation and the software in the routers they provide.
For me it is easier to just use IPv4 only, I do have setup IPv6 as I want to learn it, but for a lot of casual users there is no benefit and it only complicates matters
Mark this post as 'solved' and your answer as 'solution' would be unfair to those who think differently.
Otherwise IMHO your words should be added to the wiki pages.
In Germany I get a /56 from deutsche Telekom and my el cheapo mobile provider Aldi Talk which uses telefonica network is also ipv6 ready and I have zero issues reaching my homenetwork when I'm on the road...
Respectfully, get an ISP with a tad more clue then...
Now, I remember the times when the same was said about IPv4 compared to IPX/SPX (in the days of Novell Netware)... and today folks appear to consider IPv4 easy-peasy, so I am confident the same is going to happen with IPv6 eventually... this is more of an toothing issue IMHO than a real stumbling block.
News, at 11, geoIP sucks hard...
Hardly... your IPv4 home net is secure due to a stateful firewall at your home gateway, and the same holds true for IPv6. (Sure, some people pretend that NAPT, network address and port translation, adds an additional layer of security, but a) these folks are severely misguided, and b) if they so desire can configure that same mess with IPv6).
You are getting ready for the future... while it seems unclear if IPv4 is ever going away fully, the same holds true for IPv6, love it or hate, it is not going to go away, so ignoring it is not a loing-term stable strategy IMHO.
Yeah, that handover was not managed terribly well, but honestly the idea of a clean replacement was a bit of a tech fairy tale...
Now, you know best about your own home network (your network, your rules), but I just hooked up a secondary router (for testing) in my network and prefix delegation just worked out of the box... for IP4 that results in double NAT out of the box... that is rather convenient.
Many ISPs can't or don't want to hire/train new network personnel to operate IPv6 properly, after all, they see it as an extra cost for something that they don't deem necessary for the time being.
On top of that, many larger ISPs are still running on old 1990s/early 2000s infrastructure and equipment, some of which lack the software to handle IPv6.
My ISP gives me a /64 PD, setting VLANs with that is always a nightmare, and you can also see here what I'd to deal with in the past: Odhcp6c issue with my ISP's configuration
Overall, I feel IPv6 has been nothing but failure, thanks to the large differences between IPv4 (which every network engineer and their equipment were used to) and IPv6, very little adoption by ISPs and an excessive amount of niche specifications required by the IETF.
Also, many home network device manufacturers either don't support IPv6 or have only basic IPv6 support (TP-Link router firmwares didn't allow for you to manage the IPv6 firewall, effectively being worse than IPv4 NAT).
Anyone who says IPv6 is easier or just as easy as IPv4 clearly has not worked with developing low-level IPv6 software. Of course it's going to be very easy for clients to use it through something like SLAAC, but do enjoy actually developing the client that is actually going to implement SLAAC or having enough capable personnel across the globe to properly deploy IPv6 at global scale.
Well, if customers changed away from such ISPs and let them know why that would change the business equation...
I am pretty sure that is not correct... larger ISPs will want core equipment with warranty and maintenance contracts from the manufacturer and these IIUC tend to only come for limitied time.
Well, change ISPs then.
That is factually arguable... IPv6 is pretty much a rather boring address extension of IPv4 and the brunt of the issues come from addresses not being 32bit anymore... sure they threw in a few smallish changes as well and tried to boot out dhcp, but all in all this was a pretty unambitious design.
Well, vote with your feet then, do not buy such gunk routers.
Might be true, but since I did not claim that, why do you mention that... the same holds true if we replace IPX/SPX with netBIOS or appletalk, the point was the same whining of increases in complexity deemed unnecessary than as today, and I predict with the same outcome...
Not everyone has hundreds of ISPs available. I only have two options, two big telecoms, and both are terrible.
You would be surprised by the infrastructure of some big telecoms in 3rd world countries. Much of that was developed by the state before being sold, with private companies spending very little to upgrade their infrastructure through the years.
Of course you won't be seeing that in metropolitan areas, but not everyone live in those.
See first point. I would, like many others, if we could.
While TCP and UDP remained unchanged, protocols like ICMP received heavy changes. The structure of the IP header also changed considerably, broadcasts were completely removed and anycast was introduced (doesn't exist in IPv4). Addressing, routing, neighbours all changed aswell.
One could go on and list the differences, requiring major to significant rewriting of software in order to support it. The best case scenario is probably a TCP or UDP application making use of dual-stack, socket API and getaddrinfo/getnameinfo, but those are high-level enough that even a non-AF_INET(6) family wouldn't have much trouble adding support.
Do you expect every normie to know these things? They will buy what is cheap and working. IPv6 is always a russian roulette, if not from their ISP, from their network equipment. Most don't even know what IPv6 is, because IPv4 is ubiquitous.
Because you can't compare the two. It's much easier to replace a standard when a standard hasn't been heavily deployed/accepted yet.
If you want a large scale specification to be easily accepted and properly deployed, it must remain as simple as possible, and IPv6 failed to do that, even if the end user won't notice any difference. I don't even need to bring proof, the low adoption rate and broken configurations by multiple major ISPs speak loud enough.
Then it would cost you little to switch telling your current ISP their IPv6 sucks, and then keep repeating that...
Yes, but that is simply unavoidable if you extend IP addresses to be larger than 32bits... which is what I stated.
All small change compared to the address extension...
No, but I expect nerds to vote with their feet instead of just whining...
That is quite a statement, due to IPv4 address shortage, IPv4 is very opften more defective than ubiquitious... CG-NAT IPv4 only ist IMHO not a real internet access, but that is what a lot of customers get force fed.
Look, the operation to deduce simnilarities and differences is called comparison...
Well, I disagree here. IPv6 was as I sad rather unambitious, but the extension of addresses beyond 32 bits effectively killed any gradual deployment.
Well, over here quite a lot of traffic is already using IPv6 and a number of relevant large ISPs already deploy IPv6 in one form or other (ranging from dualstack, IPv4 CG-NAT + IPv6, all the way to ds-lite).
