Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: router with ipv6

  1. #1
    mikeyhsd
    Guest

    router with ipv6

    anyone know of a wireless router that provides ipv4 and ipv6 support.

    looks like my linksys (WRT160N) only provides ipv4.


    --

    mikeyhsd@hotmail.com






  2. #2
    Bob
    Guest

    Re: router with ipv6

    On 28/01/2010 14:17, mikeyhsd wrote:
    > anyone know of a wireless router that provides ipv4 and ipv6 support.
    > looks like my linksys (WRT160N) only provides ipv4.
    >
    > --
    >
    > mikeyhsd@hotmail.com <mailto:mikeyhsd@hotmail.com>
    >

    According to Google
    <http://www.sixxs.net/wiki/Routers> (several are wireless)
    you could also check the Phase1/Phase2 lists at
    <http://www.ipv6ready.org/?page=home>

  3. #3
    GlowingBlueMist
    Guest

    Re: router with ipv6

    Bob wrote:
    > On 28/01/2010 14:17, mikeyhsd wrote:
    >> anyone know of a wireless router that provides ipv4 and ipv6 support.
    >> looks like my linksys (WRT160N) only provides ipv4.
    >>
    >> --
    >>
    >> mikeyhsd@hotmail.com <mailto:mikeyhsd@hotmail.com>
    >>

    > According to Google
    > <http://www.sixxs.net/wiki/Routers> (several are wireless)
    > you could also check the Phase1/Phase2 lists at
    > <http://www.ipv6ready.org/?page=home>


    If your router is a revision 1.0, 1.1 or 3.0 you can upgrade it using the
    free dd-wrt router software. According to the Features list as shown below
    the dd-wrt software does support ipv6.

    http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php...RT%3F#Features

    Take it slow and do the steps in the order the software instructions show so
    you don't "brick" (make it non-functional) your router. I believe on your
    model you have to load a boot version first, then flash to the dd-wrt
    designed specifically to work with your router.

    The main link to the web site is http://www.dd-wrt.com/site/.
    If you go to the Router Database at
    http://www.dd-wrt.com/site/support/router-database and input your model
    WRT160N it will lead you through finding the right software. Click on your
    model and it should take you to the software download page for your router.

    Good luck.



  4. #4
    ps56k
    Guest

    Re: router with ipv6


    "Bob" <bob@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
    news:0KGdnY3E4JTIMvzWnZ2dnUVZ8gidnZ2d@bt.com...
    > On 28/01/2010 14:17, mikeyhsd wrote:
    >> anyone know of a wireless router that provides ipv4 and ipv6 support.
    >> looks like my linksys (WRT160N) only provides ipv4.
    >>


    Just wondering what your situation or scenario is that requires ipv6 support
    ?



  5. #5
    GlowingBlueMist
    Guest

    Re: router with ipv6

    ps56k wrote:
    > "Bob" <bob@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:0KGdnY3E4JTIMvzWnZ2dnUVZ8gidnZ2d@bt.com...
    >> On 28/01/2010 14:17, mikeyhsd wrote:
    >>> anyone know of a wireless router that provides ipv4 and ipv6
    >>> support. looks like my linksys (WRT160N) only provides ipv4.
    >>>

    >
    > Just wondering what your situation or scenario is that requires ipv6
    > support ?


    One that I have heard about is Windows 7 by default requires a router that
    supports ipv6 if you want to create a Homegroup and connect say a wireless
    laptop to a wired PC and share resources. True there are registry hacks
    that can combat this but with the right router it's not needed. Check out
    this link for more info on W7 Homegroups and ipv6:
    http://social.answers.microsoft.com/...7-a01847c37d5f



  6. #6
    mikeyhsd
    Guest

    Re: router with ipv6

    have NO specific NEED at this time.

    keep seeing warning that IPV4 addresses are about exhausted.

    just trying to get prepared.


    --

    mikeyhsd@hotmail.com





    "ps56k" <pschuman_no_spam_me@interserv.com> wrote in message news:hjsujd$1a8$1@news.eternal-september.org...

    "Bob" <bob@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
    news:0KGdnY3E4JTIMvzWnZ2dnUVZ8gidnZ2d@bt.com...
    > On 28/01/2010 14:17, mikeyhsd wrote:
    >> anyone know of a wireless router that provides ipv4 and ipv6 support.
    >> looks like my linksys (WRT160N) only provides ipv4.
    >>


    Just wondering what your situation or scenario is that requires ipv6 support
    ?



  7. #7
    mikeyhsd
    Guest

    Re: router with ipv6

    thanx, will do some further research.


    --

    mikeyhsd@hotmail.com





    "Bob" <bob@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:0KGdnY3E4JTIMvzWnZ2dnUVZ8gidnZ2d@bt.com...
    On 28/01/2010 14:17, mikeyhsd wrote:
    > anyone know of a wireless router that provides ipv4 and ipv6 support.
    > looks like my linksys (WRT160N) only provides ipv4.
    >
    > --
    >
    > mikeyhsd@hotmail.com <mailto:mikeyhsd@hotmail.com>
    >

    According to Google
    <http://www.sixxs.net/wiki/Routers> (several are wireless)
    you could also check the Phase1/Phase2 lists at
    <http://www.ipv6ready.org/?page=home>

  8. #8
    alexd
    Guest

    Re: router with ipv6

    Meanwhile, at the alt.internet.wireless Job Justification Hearings, mikeyhsd
    chose the tried and tested strategy of:

    > have NO specific NEED at this time.
    >
    > keep seeing warning that IPV4 addresses are about exhausted.


    It feels like there have been warnings about IPv4 exhaustion on a monthly
    basis for the past ten years. Apparently in China, some internet users are
    behind many layers of NAT, so we'll know we've hit a crunch point when ISPs
    are doing that on a widespread basis in the west.

    --
    <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
    09:37:52 up 8 days, 12:39, 5 users, load average: 0.02, 0.10, 0.13
    DIMENSION-CONTROLLING FORT DOH HAS NOW BEEN DEMOLISHED,
    AND TIME STARTED FLOWING REVERSELY


  9. #9
    Bob
    Guest

    Re: router with ipv6

    On 29/01/2010 00:06, mikeyhsd wrote:
    > thanx, will do some further research.
    >
    > --
    >
    > mikeyhsd@hotmail.com <mailto:mikeyhsd@hotmail.com>
    >


    If you were a Comcast user you could get involved in their trials.
    <http://www.comcast6.net/>

  10. #10
    bod43
    Guest

    Re: router with ipv6

    On 29 Jan, 10:24, Bob <b...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    > On 29/01/2010 00:06, mikeyhsd wrote:
    >
    > > thanx, will do some further research.


    Cisco do IPV6, obviously.

    For home DSL users IPV6 may be a long, long way away
    as a matter of necessity. I suspect that the major ISPs
    are already all geared up for it internally but I am not
    by any means sure.


  11. #11
    mikeyhsd
    Guest

    Re: router with ipv6

    do use comcast.
    but for nothing but what is absolutely essential.


    --

    mikeyhsd@hotmail.com





    "Bob" <bob@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:Kd6dnTlrDc7wKv_WnZ2dnUVZ8j6dnZ2d@bt.com...
    On 29/01/2010 00:06, mikeyhsd wrote:
    > thanx, will do some further research.
    >
    > --
    >
    > mikeyhsd@hotmail.com <mailto:mikeyhsd@hotmail.com>
    >


    If you were a Comcast user you could get involved in their trials.
    <http://www.comcast6.net/>

  12. #12
    Moe Trin
    Guest

    Re: router with ipv6

    On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.internet.wireless, in article
    <2297099.paU67uLZWG@ale.cx>, alexd wrote:

    ]mikeyhsd wrote:

    >> keep seeing warning that IPV4 addresses are about exhausted.


    >It feels like there have been warnings about IPv4 exhaustion on a
    >monthly basis for the past ten years.


    Well, let's see... http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
    RFC3330 used to say there were 3706453504 IPv4 addresses usable
    (RFC5735 added two more /24 reserved ranges, and we're down to
    3706452992 now). Ignoring RFC5735 address space, we have:

    Date Networks IPv4 addresses Percent
    12/31/1982 1813 307452416 8.295
    12/31/1985 1997 360680960 9.731
    12/31/1990 7907 730298112 19.703
    12/31/1995 44077 1374740706 37.090
    12/31/2000 54938 1698877890 45.836
    12/31/2005 72599 2246643418 60.614
    12/31/2007 83944 2566145180 69.235
    12/31/2009 99556 2986843144 80.585
    01/15/2010 99798 2994785288 80.799

    I suppose some might say "end of the internet in sight - films at 11".
    I know you're aware of RFC1918, but RFC1917 may be interesting reading.

    1917 An Appeal to the Internet Community to Return Unused IP Networks
    (Prefixes) to the IANA. P. Nesser II. February 1996. (Format:
    TXT=23623 bytes) (Also BCP0004) (Status: BEST CURRENT PRACTICE)

    Note the date. The first IPv6 addresses weren't allocated until
    August 1999, and even now there are only 4153 IPv6 networks world-wide.

    >Apparently in China, some internet users are behind many layers of
    >NAT, so we'll know we've hit a crunch point when ISPs are doing that
    >on a widespread basis in the west.


    I'm not sure that I'd pick on China (or India) - as both are
    comparatively undeveloped, but multi-layer NAT doesn't sound very
    likely. China didn't get the Internet until 1990, and at year end
    for each year, they had:

    1990 1 256 2000 450 13276672
    1991 2 512 2001 542 21803520
    1992 7 197632 2002 599 29487616
    1993 17 396288 2003 694 41646592
    1994 50 517376 2004 829 60339712
    1995 143 1256960 2005 968 74348032
    1996 198 2966016 2006 1157 97990144
    1997 240 3769856 2007 1384 135281920
    1998 331 5424640 2008 1551 181776640
    1999 375 7570944 2009 1695 232446464

    As of 01/15/2010, that was 1700 nets and 234183168 IPv4 addresses
    for a population of ~1.3e9 people (about 1 address for every 5
    people) while India had 695 nets and 19420928 IPv4 addresses for
    1.1e9 people (about 1 address for every 57 people), compared to
    (examples) South Korea with 748 networks and 77822464 IPv4 addresses
    for about 48e6 people (~1.6 addresses per person) or the UK with 3916
    nets and 74332504 IPv4 addresses for about 60.5e6 people (~1.2
    addresses per person).

    Old guy

  13. #13
    Moe Trin
    Guest

    Re: router with ipv6

    On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.internet.wireless, in article
    <4d0c6b3d-2719-4c86-a70a-07db75c60d99@b10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, bod43
    wrote:

    NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
    reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.

    >For home DSL users IPV6 may be a long, long way away
    >as a matter of necessity. I suspect that the major ISPs
    >are already all geared up for it internally but I am not
    >by any means sure.


    I see a significant number of complaints from *nix users reporting
    slow browser connections. When they put a packet sniffer on the
    system, they see their system asking the DNS server for an 'AAAA'
    record (hostname to IPv6 address) and the server ignoring them.
    After a few seconds (up to 30), their system asks for an 'AA'
    record (hostname to IPv4 address) and get an almost immediate
    response. This is a well documented problem:

    4074 Common Misbehavior Against DNS Queries for IPv6 Addresses. Y.
    Morishita, T. Jinmei. May 2005. (Format: TXT=13073 bytes)
    (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

    and you'd think ISPs would have pulled their finger out by now...

    Old guy

  14. #14
    Kurt Ullman
    Guest

    Re: router with ipv6

    In article <leebm51v96n47e956mq7fsgorgme900und@4ax.com>,
    John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

    > On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:12:35 -0600,
    > ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld.invalid (Moe Trin) wrote in
    > <slrnhm78sr.1dm.ibuprofin@compton.phx.az.us>:
    >
    > >NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
    > >reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.

    >
    > Nonsense.


    Google Groups more likely. If only because so many people (such as
    myself) have blocked GG entirely because of the spammer problems.

    --
    I get off on '57 Chevys
    I get off on screamin' guitars
    --Eric Clapton

  15. #15
    Christopher A. Lee
    Guest

    Re: router with ipv6

    On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:59:40 -0800, John Navas
    <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

    >On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:27:38 -0500, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
    >wrote in <yPSdnQOCnNUWIPjWnZ2dnUVZ_spi4p2d@earthlink.com>:
    >
    >>In article <leebm51v96n47e956mq7fsgorgme900und@4ax.com>,
    >> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:12:35 -0600,
    >>> ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld.invalid (Moe Trin) wrote in
    >>> <slrnhm78sr.1dm.ibuprofin@compton.phx.az.us>:
    >>>
    >>> >NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
    >>> >reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.
    >>>
    >>> Nonsense.

    >>
    >> Google Groups more likely. If only because so many people (such as
    >>myself) have blocked GG entirely because of the spammer problems.

    >
    >Nobody cares that you and a few others choose to engage in such
    >silliness.


    Trolling?

    Plenty of us block google with a higher proprity retrieve on specific
    posters.

    It reduces traffic by about two thirds, mostly spam.

  16. #16
    Kurt Ullman
    Guest

    Re: router with ipv6

    In article <t5lbm5p2sqqo8bf3jbt6dkjcsh1o4s4rem@4ax.com>,
    Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:

    > On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:59:40 -0800, John Navas
    > <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
    >
    > >On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:27:38 -0500, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
    > >wrote in <yPSdnQOCnNUWIPjWnZ2dnUVZ_spi4p2d@earthlink.com>:
    > >
    > >>In article <leebm51v96n47e956mq7fsgorgme900und@4ax.com>,
    > >> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:12:35 -0600,
    > >>> ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld.invalid (Moe Trin) wrote in
    > >>> <slrnhm78sr.1dm.ibuprofin@compton.phx.az.us>:
    > >>>
    > >>> >NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
    > >>> >reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.
    > >>>
    > >>> Nonsense.
    > >>
    > >> Google Groups more likely. If only because so many people (such as
    > >>myself) have blocked GG entirely because of the spammer problems.

    > >
    > >Nobody cares that you and a few others choose to engage in such
    > >silliness.

    >
    > Trolling?
    >
    > Plenty of us block google with a higher proprity retrieve on specific
    > posters.
    >
    > It reduces traffic by about two thirds, mostly spam.


    Glad to have another Comrade in Silliness. Apparently JN cared enuff
    to reply.

    --
    I get off on '57 Chevys
    I get off on screamin' guitars
    --Eric Clapton

  17. #17
    Christopher A. Lee
    Guest

    Re: router with ipv6

    On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:38:02 -0500, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
    wrote:

    >In article <t5lbm5p2sqqo8bf3jbt6dkjcsh1o4s4rem@4ax.com>,
    > Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:59:40 -0800, John Navas
    >> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> >On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:27:38 -0500, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
    >> >wrote in <yPSdnQOCnNUWIPjWnZ2dnUVZ_spi4p2d@earthlink.com>:
    >> >
    >> >>In article <leebm51v96n47e956mq7fsgorgme900und@4ax.com>,
    >> >> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:12:35 -0600,
    >> >>> ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld.invalid (Moe Trin) wrote in
    >> >>> <slrnhm78sr.1dm.ibuprofin@compton.phx.az.us>:
    >> >>>
    >> >>> >NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
    >> >>> >reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.
    >> >>>
    >> >>> Nonsense.
    >> >>
    >> >> Google Groups more likely. If only because so many people (such as
    >> >>myself) have blocked GG entirely because of the spammer problems.
    >> >
    >> >Nobody cares that you and a few others choose to engage in such
    >> >silliness.

    >>
    >> Trolling?
    >>
    >> Plenty of us block google with a higher proprity retrieve on specific
    >> posters.
    >>
    >> It reduces traffic by about two thirds, mostly spam.

    >
    > Glad to have another Comrade in Silliness. Apparently JN cared enuff
    >to reply.


    It wasn't a rhetorical question whan I aid "trolling?".

  18. #18
    Moe Trin
    Guest

    Re: router with ipv6

    On Sun, 31 Jan 2010, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.internet.wireless, in article
    <tlkbm5pcs9ajmq0dhm9sgt11spmljkllhu@4ax.com>, John Navas wrote:

    >Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:


    >> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:


    >>> ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld.invalid (Moe Trin) wrote


    >>>> NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
    >>>> reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.


    >>> Nonsense.


    You are welcome to your own opinions. Many people find the large
    quantities of spamvertisements posted from googlegroups.com objectionable,
    and the absolute refusal of google to control that abuse as grounds for
    filtering all posts from that source - spam or not.

    >> Google Groups more likely. If only because so many people (such as
    >> myself) have blocked GG entirely because of the spammer problems.


    >Nobody cares that you and a few others choose to engage in such
    >silliness.


    The "shark" may be gone, but "The Usenet Improvement Project" is still
    reachable at http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/index.html.
    Some people apply a very simple rule to their news reading or spooling
    tool (syntax may vary - see your documentation):
    [*]
    Score:: =-9999
    Message-ID: googlegroups.com

    Just because your news reader can't do that doesn't mean others can't
    as well. Additionally, some news _providers_ filter all posts from
    google. That is the reason I've set my news reader to automatically
    include that "NOTE:" whenever I reply to a post from googlegroups.com.

    Old guy

  19. #19
    alexd
    Guest

    Re: router with ipv6

    Meanwhile, at the alt.internet.wireless Job Justification Hearings, Moe Trin
    chose the tried and tested strategy of:

    >>Apparently in China, some internet users are behind many layers of
    >>NAT


    > I'm not sure that I'd pick on China (or India) - as both are
    > comparatively undeveloped, but multi-layer NAT doesn't sound very
    > likely.


    The statistics you supply are interesting, but don't help me estimate
    whether the average number of NAT layers as supplied on internet connections
    by ISPs higher in China than in the UK. Having thought some more, it does
    seem less likely as there are only so many people you can have behind a
    single public IP address [depending on their propensity to open connections,
    and keep them open].

    --
    <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
    21:10:55 up 11 days, 12 min, 5 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
    DIMENSION-CONTROLLING FORT DOH HAS NOW BEEN DEMOLISHED,
    AND TIME STARTED FLOWING REVERSELY


  20. #20
    Moe Trin
    Guest

    Re: router with ipv6

    On Sun, 31 Jan 2010, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.internet.wireless, in article
    <35148273.KPVSPYKUYF@ale.cx>, alexd wrote:

    >>> Apparently in China, some internet users are behind many layers of
    >>> NAT


    >> I'm not sure that I'd pick on China (or India) - as both are
    >> comparatively undeveloped, but multi-layer NAT doesn't sound very
    >> likely.


    >The statistics you supply are interesting, but don't help me estimate
    >whether the average number of NAT layers as supplied on internet
    >connections by ISPs higher in China than in the UK.


    Without looking in country, it's somewhat hard to give actual figures,
    but using a (passive) O/S fingerprinting tool to analyze the connection
    attempts at my firewall shows little indication of NAT. Either they
    are managing to NAT in such a manner as to mimic existing operating
    systems well enough to fool this tool, or they aren't doing NAT. Of
    course, that's a rather limited view, as all I'm likely to see are
    ordinary people who made typ0s (I don't offer services to the world),
    skript kiddiez and 'b0ts. For what it's worth, I do see some NAT'ed
    connection attempts reported (average around 0.1%, 3/4 windoze, 1/4
    some form of *nix), but these seem to be residential users with no
    obvious geographic dominance other than the "local" network range.

    >Having thought some more, it does seem less likely as there are only
    >so many people you can have behind a single public IP address
    >[depending on their propensity to open connections, and keep them
    >open].


    That's the other problem. Most users on the Internet are using some
    form of web browser because that's the only application they've heard
    of (cue the standard joke that "all hostnames on the internet begin
    with 'www' and end with '.com'"). Given the amount of extra crap on
    the average web page, a system is going to be using a number of
    connections just to bring up all of the graphics, ads, and mal-ware.
    Trying to fit a bunch of users into a single address runs into
    bandwidth and CPU issues fairly quickly.

    Old guy

Similar Threads

  1. modem, router help, please
    By petemag in forum General Broadband Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-12-10, 11:21 PM
  2. Re: Putting a switch between router and cable modem
    By ps56k in forum alt.internet.wireless
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-30-09, 09:57 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-25-09, 10:47 PM
  4. Having Trouble with Wireless Router
    By purecomedy in forum Wireless Networks & Routers
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-16-08, 09:48 PM
  5. Help, DSL router probs
    By russnettle in forum General Broadband Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-29-07, 10:23 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •