Are any of you ipv6'rs using unifi products such as the UDMP?
* Forwarded from area 'IPV6'
Hello Rick,
On Monday September 13 2021 05:55, you wrote to All:
Are any of you ipv6'rs using unifi products such as the UDMP?
Sorry, can't help you there.
So have you contacted your ISP? Did they enable IPv6 for you?
* Forwarded from area 'IPV6'
Hello Rick,
On Monday September 13 2021 05:55, you wrote to All:
Are any of you ipv6'rs using unifi products such as the UDMP?
I use their modem?? That seems weird to me but what do I know....
* Forwarded from area 'IPV6'
Rick;
[snip]
I use their modem?? That seems weird to me but what do I
know....
You can always get a tunneled IPv6 block free from HE.net and tell
your ISP to piss off. That's what I basically did and I've been fine since.
Thank you for the suggestion, unfortunately I have not an idea of what that means, I even went to their website to see if it would be obvious
and it was not..
You can always get a tunneled IPv6 block free from HE.net and tell
your ISP to piss off. That's what I basically did and I've been fine since.
* Forwarded from area 'IPV6'
Hi Rick!
Monday September 13 2021 19:57, you wrote to Brian Rogers:
Thank you for the suggestion, unfortunately I have not an idea of
what that means, I even went to their website to see if it would
be obvious and it was not..
https://tunnelbroker.net/
Are any of you ipv6'rs using unifi products such as the UDMP?
Not looking good, apparently they say I cant have ipV6 addresses
unless I use their modem??
I use their modem?? That seems weird to me but what do I
know....
You can always get a tunneled IPv6 block free from HE.net and tell
your ISP to piss off. That's what I basically did and I've been fine since.
Rick Smith wrote to Brian Rogers <=-
Thank you for the suggestion, unfortunately I have not an idea of what that means, I even went to their website to see if it would be obvious
and it was not.. I think ill just stick to the ipv4 I have the block
and it works...
Tommi Koivula wrote to Brian Rogers <=-
And he.net tunnel is nice because you always get static addresses. :)
Victor Sudakov wrote to Brian Rogers <=-
That's what I've done, but it results in a lower bandwidth over IPv6,
and extra hops. The bandwidth is so much lower that browsers tend to
fall back to IPv4 (Yes I know there is a tweak to stop this behaviour
in Firefox, nevertheless my IPv6 connection is inferior to IPv4).
Not looking good, apparently they say I cant have ipV6 addresses
unless I use their modem?? That seems weird to me but what do I
know....
IPv4 is going to be a thing of the past and the sooner you learn IPv6
the better off you're going to be. From he.net, go to tunnel broker.
Sign up! You'll bind your IPv4 to their IPv6. Samples of how to do it
are pre-provided by their website.
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Rick Smith <=-
I can only concur. Open an account with he.net. It is free and even if
in the end you decide not to make use of their free tunnel service,
there is a lot to learn there. They offer turorials, and you can get "certificates". They used to hand out T-shirts for those who graduate
to "sage" status but apparently they no longer do.
You can always get a tunneled IPv6 block free from HE.net and
tell your ISP to piss off. That's what I basically did and I've
been fine since.
That's what I've done, but it results in a lower bandwidth over IPv6,
and extra hops.
The bandwidth is so much lower that browsers tend to fall back to IPv4
(Yes I know there is a tweak to stop this behaviour in Firefox, nevertheless my IPv6 connection is inferior to IPv4).
Brian Rogers wrote to Rick Smith <=-
Hurricane Electric is also global so their routing on IPv6 is amazing. Some of their tech staff are also ham radio operators so they're quite tech savvy.
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Victor Sudakov <=-
A tunnel is good, native IPv6 is better. I noticed it too when I used tunnels. IPv6 over the tunnel is significantky slower than IPv4. Up to 50% slower. Native IPv6 is always preferable so we we should all keep perstering our ISPs about IPv6.
As I said: native is preferable, but a tunnel is better than no IPv6 at all.
Kurt Weiske wrote to Brian Rogers <=-
A local alarm company, Bay Alarm, got into the hosting business after self- hosting their infrastructure and wanting to make money off of the unused square footage in their space. They figured with their
background in security they'd have a good start into colocation. That
was how HE got their start.
A tunnel is good, native IPv6 is better. I noticed it too when I
used tunnels. IPv6 over the tunnel is significantky slower than
IPv4. Up to 50% slower. Native IPv6 is always preferable so we
we should all keep perstering our ISPs about IPv6.
If you were getting that much of a slowdown, something else was going
on.
Granted the MTU is slightly and I mean slightly less than native
IPv6 or IPv4, but it's only by 20 bytes/1500 byte packet. Doing the
math, this does NOT equal a 50% lag.
Maybe the issue is that your ISP's path to your IPv6 tunnel provider
is not an optimum path? Mine is just a couple hops away so it's not an issue for me.
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Brian Rogers <=-
The prime suspect is still the router that ran my tunnel endpoint back than. A Linksys WRT54G running OpenWrt. But I could bever make sure.
The prime suspect is still the router that ran my tunnel endpoint
back than. A Linksys WRT54G running OpenWrt. But I could bever make
sure.
I'd put money on that being the cause. We haven't used that router
here in almost 10 years! It's quite antiquated and not a very fast
packet switch.
That's what I've done, but it results in a lower bandwidth over
IPv6, and extra hops. The bandwidth is so much lower that
browsers tend to fall back to IPv4 (Yes I know there is a tweak
to stop this behaviour in Firefox, nevertheless my IPv6
connection is inferior to IPv4).
I haven't had that issue. There are some websites such as Yahoo that
will block Firefox on IPv6 I wonder if that's what you're
experiencing?
You can always get a tunneled IPv6 block free from HE.net and
tell your ISP to piss off. That's what I basically did and I've
been fine since.
That's what I've done, but it results in a lower bandwidth over
IPv6, and extra hops.
A tunnel is good, native IPv6 is better. I noticed it too when I used tunnels. IPv6 over the tunnel is significantky slower than IPv4. Up to
50% slower. Native IPv6 is always preferable so we we should all keep perstering our ISPs about IPv6.
The bandwidth is so much lower that browsers tend to fall back to
IPv4
I haven't seen that particular problem.
(Yes I know there is a tweak to stop this behaviour in Firefox,
nevertheless my IPv6 connection is inferior to IPv4).
As I said: native is preferable, but a tunnel is better than no IPv6
at all.
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Brian Rogers <=-
I wrote a series of Fidonews articles about it under the title "A
second life for the Linksys".
Victor Sudakov wrote to Brian Rogers <=-[snip]
I don't think so.
I wrote a series of Fidonews articles about it under the title
"A second life for the Linksys".
You might as well been better off using a Raspberry Pi.
That's what I use for my IPv6 "router". Works fine for me.
MvdV> The Raspberrys that I have seen have only only ethernet port.You might as well been better off using a Raspberry Pi.
That's what I use for my IPv6 "router". Works fine for me.
That's what I use for my IPv6 "router". Works fine for me.
The Raspberrys that I have seen have only only ethernet port. Do the later models have at least two ethernet ports
so that one can make a WAN port and a LAN port?
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Brian Rogers <=-
Perhaps. But an unused Linksys is what I had laying around.
The Raspberrys that I have seen have only only ethernet port. Do the later models have at least two ethernet ports so that one can make a
WAN port and a LAN port?
The Raspberrys that I have seen have only only ethernet port. DoI haven't seen any however you can turn one into a wifi access point
the later models have at least two ethernet ports so that one can
make a WAN port and a LAN port?
quit easily.
Perhaps. But an unused Linksys is what I had laying around.
Understood.
The Raspberrys that I have seen have only only ethernet port. Do
the later models have at least two ethernet ports so that one
can make a WAN port and a LAN port?
I haven't seen any however you can turn one into a wifi access point
quit easily.
Alexey Vissarionov wrote to Brian Rogers <=-
Yes - that's normally as easy as:
Also, the `head -c12 /dev/urandom | openssl base64` command would give
you a really good passphrase.
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Brian Rogers <=-
Playing around with that linksys to configure the tunnel endpoint and distributing IPv6 to the devices in the LAN was an interesting experience.
I prefer to have my devices connected by wire whenever practical and possible. So WiFi only isn't good enough for me.
Playing around with that linksys to configure the tunnel
endpoint and distributing IPv6 to the devices in the LAN was an
interesting experience.
I'm sure it was! Learning IPv6 isn't really that difficult if you
follow the logistics used in IPv4. Routing, iptables, etc are all
pretty parallel to each other.
I prefer to have my devices connected by wire whenever practical
and possible. So WiFi only isn't good enough for me.
You could use an old paperweight PC with a bare minimum install and
just add the tools you need, along with 2 NICs. Actually BSD makes for
a better router than linux does.
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Brian Rogers <=-
There I only partly agree. Sure, many things are the same or similar in IPv4 and IPv6. But I also find that many newcomers to IPv6 have difficulty to get rid of "IPv4 think". To let go of the idea that NAT
is "security" and that IPv6 is insecure because it does not use NAT is something that needs to sink in. Also it takes a while to realize that there is no need to be greedy when assigning addresses. There are 2^64 addresses in a subnet...
There is more than one road that leads to Rome...
I don't think so.[snip]
I know for a fact that Yahoo blocks Firefox on IPv6, they may even redirect you to a non-SSL page that reflects such. Yahoo claims that
SSL on IPv6 for Firefox has security issues thus they deny access to
their site because of it. Now whether or not that's factually true is another story when you consider they've been cracked twice. Yahoo is
the only site I've had an issue with being blocked.
Victor Sudakov wrote to Brian Rogers <=-
I don't visit Yahoo but I believe you. Whenever you hear of someone
doing some really weird and bizarre things, there is a reason to
believe.
Sysop: | Nelgin |
---|---|
Location: | Plano, TX |
Users: | 615 |
Nodes: | 10 (1 / 9) |
Uptime: | 55:11:06 |
Calls: | 9,850 |
Files: | 96,973 |
Messages: | 1,080,778 |