Rogers IPv6 Status

[foodgodessto]

Hello,

I'm wondering what the current IPv6 status is within Rogers.  A search on the forums only shows 10 topics over the past year that even mention IPv6, and there doesn't appear to be any official communications from Rogers since IPv6 day last year.

I know that Rogers (supposedly) supports IPv6 tunneling (although the only person to ask about it did not get any responses).

[Datalink]

@JKnott please let us know how the modem swap conversation turns out.  If as @RogersDave indicated, that it shouldn't be a problem, I would expect you to be able to upgrade the modem at no cost to yourself.  I'll be interested to see if that is how it turns out.  

[gcerullo]

---

@VivienM wrote:

And anyways, why does 'the customer' really need IPv6 for another 3-5 years? It's fun to play with for techies, but... what other use does it have for most people today?

---

It's a classic chicken and egg story. Web sites were reluctant to move to IPv6 because none of their visitors were on IPv6. ISPs were reluctant to move their networks to IPv6 because of the costs and general hassle so they used the excuse that no web sites were IPv6 enable.

Now here we are, it's 2016 and it's crunch time. ARIN has no more IPv4 addresses to allocate and the rest of the world's Internet authorities other than AfriNIC are running out as well. 

We've been procrastinating about this long enough. It's time to make the move and work out the last kinks before we find ourselves with people who can't reach anything because they are behind some big ill-conceive CGNAT or just can't get an IPv4 address at all.

[Datalink]

@RogersDave, would you happen to know if Rogers DNS does any filtering for spam or malware websites as OpenDNS does for IPV4?  One of the major issues with IPV6 is security.  Using OpenDNS as an example, IPV4 DNS requests are screened for spam or malware sites, just depends on what is set on your OpenDNS dashboard and possibly whether or not you use the family friendly OpenDNS address.  IPV6 comes along, with each device having its own IPV6 address, which breaks the screening for the singular IPV4 modem address that was used previously.  This is possibly the same for other DNS that screen addresses for known spam or malware sites.  Just curious as to whether the Rogers DNS is simply IP address resolution or if there is anything more that it does?

[JKnott]

---

@JKnott wrote:

---

I used to work for Unitel and would often work with RNS.  Unitel went bust and also eventually became part of Allstream.

---

Forgot to mention, Rogers used to be a major owner of Unitel.  Prior to Unitel, it was CNCP Telecommunications, owned equally by CN & CP railways.  Then CN sold out, Roger bought in and a small slice went to AT&T.  I got my first Cantel cell phone in 1995, with employee pricing.  After a few years, Unitel went bust with CP & Rogers abandoning the company to the banks, who then put AT&T in charge of what became AT&T Canada.  Things went through various stages to where we now have Allstream being bought by Zayo.  However, I still run into people at Allstream (Zayo) that I knew back in the Unitel days.

[VivienM]

---

@gcerullo wrote:

---

VivienM wrote:

And anyways, why does 'the customer' really need IPv6 for another 3-5 years? It's fun to play with for techies, but... what other use does it have for most people today?

---

It's a classic chicken and egg story. Web sites were reluctant to move to IPv6 because none of their visitors were on IPv6. ISPs were reluctant to move their networks to IPv6 because of the costs and general hassle so they used the excuse that no web sites were IPv6 enable.

Now here we are, it's 2016 and it's crunch time. ARIN has no more IPv4 addresses to allocate and the rest of the world's Internet authorities other than AfriNIC are running out as well. 

We've been procrastinating about this long enough. It's time to make the move and work out the last kinks before we find ourselves with people who can't reach anything because they are behind some big ill-conceive CGNAT or just can't get an IPv4 address at all.

---

Sadly, this migration would have been a whole lot easier a decade or two ago... but instead we have been around by devices that have longer lifespans and likely don't support IPv6. e.g. I would be shocked in my 2012-era smart TV can do IPv6. Or my two 2011-era smart bluray players. 

(That being said, now that I have an IPv6-enabled network, I will check if those devices are indeed as IPv4-only as expected.)

I have long been critical of IPv6. Designed by committee to fix everybody's problems... but while everybody designed the perfect protocol that would restore the end-to-end nature of the Internet and exterminate the immorality known as NAT forever, the rest of the world started to include IPv4 into more and more and more things. Honestly, I would argue that IPv6 is the Itanium of networking protocols... but since no one came up with the 'amd64' network protocol (i.e. a quick and dirty kludge that can be implemented easily), I guess we're finally going to make the move. But I'll be shocked if IPv4 is gone completely before 2025-2030...

[VivienM]

---

@VivienM wrote:

---

@gcerullo wrote:

---

VivienM wrote:

And anyways, why does 'the customer' really need IPv6 for another 3-5 years? It's fun to play with for techies, but... what other use does it have for most people today?

---

It's a classic chicken and egg story. Web sites were reluctant to move to IPv6 because none of their visitors were on IPv6. ISPs were reluctant to move their networks to IPv6 because of the costs and general hassle so they used the excuse that no web sites were IPv6 enable.

Now here we are, it's 2016 and it's crunch time. ARIN has no more IPv4 addresses to allocate and the rest of the world's Internet authorities other than AfriNIC are running out as well. 

We've been procrastinating about this long enough. It's time to make the move and work out the last kinks before we find ourselves with people who can't reach anything because they are behind some big ill-conceive CGNAT or just can't get an IPv4 address at all.

---

Sadly, this migration would have been a whole lot easier a decade or two ago... but instead we have been around by devices that have longer lifespans and likely don't support IPv6. e.g. I would be shocked in my 2012-era smart TV can do IPv6. Or my two 2011-era smart bluray players. 

(That being said, now that I have an IPv6-enabled network, I will check if those devices are indeed as IPv4-only as expected.)

---

I hate to reply to myself, but it seems like my 2011-era network printer supports IPv6. That's mildly encouraging... 

[Datalink]

To which I would reply, why should your LAN printer have an internet capable IPV6 address?  Just because it can doesn't mean that it should, personal opinion.  That's part of the whole IPV6 security problem.  You should be able to designate which devices on the LAN are internet authorized, and which are LAN authorized, again, personal opinion.  Gonna have to check out pfSense....

[VivienM]

---

@Datalink wrote:

To which I would reply, why should your LAN printer have an internet capable IPV6 address?  Just because it can doesn't mean that it should, personal opinion.  That's part of the whole IPV6 security problem.  You should be able to designate which devices on the LAN are internet authorized, and which are LAN authorized, again, personal opinion.  Gonna have to check out pfSense....

---

Well, to the extent that my printer DOESN'T support IPv6, that just means that my machines would need to stay dual-stack, at least internally, until I get a new printer... 

... and since I've printed under 500 pages with this printer (great refurbished deal) in the 2.5+ years I've owned it, I can't imagine getting another printer for a long number of years... 

[gcerullo]

---

@VivienM wrote:

---

@gcerullo wrote:

---

@VivienM wrote:

And anyways, why does 'the customer' really need IPv6 for another 3-5 years? It's fun to play with for techies, but... what other use does it have for most people today?

---

It's a classic chicken and egg story. Web sites were reluctant to move to IPv6 because none of their visitors were on IPv6. ISPs were reluctant to move their networks to IPv6 because of the costs and general hassle so they used the excuse that no web sites were IPv6 enable.

Now here we are, it's 2016 and it's crunch time. ARIN has no more IPv4 addresses to allocate and the rest of the world's Internet authorities other than AfriNIC are running out as well. 

We've been procrastinating about this long enough. It's time to make the move and work out the last kinks before we find ourselves with people who can't reach anything because they are behind some big ill-conceive CGNAT or just can't get an IPv4 address at all.

---

Sadly, this migration would have been a whole lot easier a decade or two ago... but instead we have been around by devices that have longer lifespans and likely don't support IPv6. e.g. I would be shocked in my 2012-era smart TV can do IPv6. Or my two 2011-era smart bluray players. 

(That being said, now that I have an IPv6-enabled network, I will check if those devices are indeed as IPv4-only as expected.)

I have long been critical of IPv6. Designed by committee to fix everybody's problems... but while everybody designed the perfect protocol that would restore the end-to-end nature of the Internet and exterminate the immorality known as NAT forever, the rest of the world started to include IPv4 into more and more and more things. Honestly, I would argue that IPv6 is the Itanium of networking protocols... but since no one came up with the 'amd64' network protocol (i.e. a quick and dirty kludge that can be implemented easily), I guess we're finally going to make the move. But I'll be shocked if IPv4 is gone completely before 2025-2030...

---

I feel your pain! I have a Satellite Receiver and A/V Receiver and a network enabled UPS that all are IPv4 only. I'm not worried about them, they were purchased a while ago and we'll be running dual-stack for the foreseeable future anyway but anything I buy from now on will need to be IPv6 enabled. I don't want my new purchases to be obsolete already.

[gcerullo]

---

@Datalink wrote:

To which I would reply, why should your LAN printer have an internet capable IPV6 address?  Just because it can doesn't mean that it should, personal opinion.  That's part of the whole IPV6 security problem.  You should be able to designate which devices on the LAN are internet authorized, and which are LAN authorized, again, personal opinion.  Gonna have to check out pfSense....

---

Just because all these IPv6 devices have Internet addressable IPv6 addresses does not mean they can be reached from the Internet. Remember, they are all hidden behind a stateful firewall just like they were when they were behind NAT. It's just that now you can open ports in your firewall to allow access to those devices if you so choose rather that forwarding a limited number of ports like you would have to do with a NAT router.

You are running a staeful firewall in your router aren't you?

[JKnott]

---

Sadly, this migration would have been a whole lot easier a decade or two ago... but instead we have been around by devices that have longer lifespans and likely don't support IPv6. e.g. I would be shocked in my 2012-era smart TV can do IPv6. Or my two 2011-era smart bluray players. 

(That being said, now that I have an IPv6-enabled network, I will check if those devices are indeed as IPv4-only as expected.)

I have long been critical of IPv6. Designed by committee to fix everybody's problems... but while everybody designed the perfect protocol that would restore the end-to-end nature of the Internet and exterminate the immorality known as NAT forever, the rest of the world started to include IPv4 into more and more and more things. Honestly, I would argue that IPv6 is the Itanium of networking protocols... but since no one came up with the 'amd64' network protocol (i.e. a quick and dirty kludge that can be implemented easily), I guess we're finally going to make the move. But I'll be shocked if IPv4 is gone completely before 2025-2030...

---

IPv6 wasn't ready 20 years ago.  I first read about it in the April 1995 issue of Byte magazine and at that time it was still very much in development.  IPv6 fixed a lot of bad things in IPv4, in addition to providing a huge address space.  Also, before IPv4 became populer, Novell's IPX was the routed protocol of choice.  Now you never hear of it.

[JKnott]

---

@Datalink wrote:

To which I would reply, why should your LAN printer have an internet capable IPV6 address?  Just because it can doesn't mean that it should, personal opinion.  That's part of the whole IPV6 security problem.  You should be able to designate which devices on the LAN are internet authorized, and which are LAN authorized, again, personal opinion.  Gonna have to check out pfSense....

---

Microsoft's Home Group network runs exclusively over IPv6.  So, if you want it to work directly with a printer, that printer has to support IPv6.  There's no reason why such devices can't run with just link local or other limited scope addresses.

[Datalink]

"You are running a stateful firewall in your router aren't you?"

@gcerullo, I turned on IPV6 using a stateful firewall, and after a little reading, turned off IPV6 until OpenDNS enables web filtering for IPV6, or I move to something like pfSense which has better filtering capabilities that wouldn't rely on OpenDNS.  This goes beyond the issue of what state the firewall is operating in, which is also important.  I'm just looking for a way to maintain some form of IP address checking for IPV6 operation.

[gcerullo]

---

@Datalink wrote:

"You are running a stateful firewall in your router aren't you?"

@gcerullo, I turned on IPV6 using a stateful firewall, and after a little reading, turned off IPV6 until OpenDNS enables web filtering for IPV6, or I move to something like pfSense which has better filtering capabilities that wouldn't rely on OpenDNS.  This goes beyond the issue of what state the firewall is operating in, which is also important.  I'm just looking for a way to maintain some form of IP address checking for IPV6 operation.

---

You're conflating a "content filter" which is a service provided by OpenDNS with an "IP filter" which is what you get with a stateful firewall. They are completely separate things that serve two completely separate purposes.

The content filter provided by OpenDNS will have no affect on an Internet accessible IPv6 printer as you used in your example. As I stated, you run the same risks with a properly configured stateful firewall as you do with a NAT router. 

[VivienM]

---

@JKnott wrote:

---

Sadly, this migration would have been a whole lot easier a decade or two ago... but instead we have been around by devices that have longer lifespans and likely don't support IPv6. e.g. I would be shocked in my 2012-era smart TV can do IPv6. Or my two 2011-era smart bluray players. 

(That being said, now that I have an IPv6-enabled network, I will check if those devices are indeed as IPv4-only as expected.)

I have long been critical of IPv6. Designed by committee to fix everybody's problems... but while everybody designed the perfect protocol that would restore the end-to-end nature of the Internet and exterminate the immorality known as NAT forever, the rest of the world started to include IPv4 into more and more and more things. Honestly, I would argue that IPv6 is the Itanium of networking protocols... but since no one came up with the 'amd64' network protocol (i.e. a quick and dirty kludge that can be implemented easily), I guess we're finally going to make the move. But I'll be shocked if IPv4 is gone completely before 2025-2030...

---

IPv6 wasn't ready 20 years ago.  I first read about it in the April 1995 issue of Byte magazine and at that time it was still very much in development.  IPv6 fixed a lot of bad things in IPv4, in addition to providing a huge address space.  Also, before IPv4 became populer, Novell's IPX was the routed protocol of choice.  Now you never hear of it.

---

The IPv4 shortage was first anticipated in the mid-90s, around the time they moved to CIDR, cracked down on registrations of unique IPv4 address space for non-public-Internet use, etc. Those measures, despite the massive growth of the IPv4 Internet, did keep things going for a good... 20 years. 

And yes, IPv6 fixes a lot of bad things in IPv4. But to go back to my analogy, Itanium also fixed a lot of bad things in the x86 architecture... but in the process of fixing lots of bad things, it also became something no one used. Then AMD came out with amd64 - ugly, inelegant, but avoided the chicken-and-egg problem... and today, even Apple runs on amd64 hardware while Itanium is in most people's top 5-10 greatest tech flops list. 

I just feel like someone could have come up with some clever, easy-to-implement kludge that would have added two octets to IPv4 or something and taken every TCP/IP stack vendor a week to implement in 1997.

But no, the folks who designed IPv6 intended to make something much better. And while they were designing the perfect protocol, IPv4 (especially in harder to upgrade devices) spread and spread and spread.

In 1999, the average residential household had one IPv4-capable device, maybe two, running some flavour of Windows or classic MacOS. I don't even remember hearing of any consumer-grade hardware IPv4 NAT devices until 2000 or so; in 1999, if you wanted to share an Internet connection, you shoved two NICs in your Windows box and ran Wingate (which didn't even do real NAT) and later Sygate or Win98SE's ICS. Or you set up a Linux/FreeBSD box with two NICs... and there weren't distros like pfSense around either.

In 2016, the average residential household is going to have one smartphone per person, some tablets, a couple Windows/Mac computers, a smart TV or smart bluray player or other streaming TV thing(s), a networked printer, maybe even a NAS of some kind, and a 'router'/gateway that does IPv4 NAT. That's a lot more devices that are potentially IPv4-only... and whose manufacturers do not care about upgrading for IPv6 support.

(Say what you want about Microsoft or Apple, but at least they were shipping a fully-supported IPv6 stack almost 10 years ago... how many smart TVs sold at Best Buy today have IPv6 support?)

[Datalink]

Yup, absolutely they are two separate issues and capabilities.  I'm only indicating that I'm not planning on running IPV6 until I get a better handle on web or IP address filtering for IPV6.  And, you're absolutely correct, you can get into just as much trouble no matter what you run, stateful firewall or NAT. 

[howi]

@RogersDave,

Thanks. After getting the firmware of the CGN3ACSMR got updated to 4.5.8.20 and a reset, now the IPv6 gateway functions are online.

Same observations as with @gp-se... minor details like the 2.4GHz WiFi indicator light is now functioning properly.

My question is that if the Manual DNS settings will support IPv6 ones in the next firmware release? I have tried with the Google (2001:4860:4860::8888), but it will reject the format at this moment.

[JKnott]

---

@VivienM wrote:

---

(Say what you want about Microsoft or Apple, but at least they were shipping a fully-supported IPv6 stack almost 10 years ago... how many smart TVs sold at Best Buy today have IPv6 support?)

---

I don't know much about Macs, but full IPv6 support didn't hit Windows until XP SP3.  Not sure when that was.  My Nextbox 3 PVR appears to support IPv6.  A lot of networking stuff appears first in Linux & BSD, so anything that runs those have a head start, if the developers choose to implement it.  Also, you mentioned the AMD 64 bit CPU.  Support for it first appeared on Linux and there was a 64 bit Linux for the DEC Alpha, followed shortly after for the PowerPC, about 20 years  ago.  The reason Itanium failed was inertia.  People just didn't want to move from the "Wintel" universe, bad as it was.

[timlocke]

Our 'average residential household'  has 16  IP devices.  Some do V6 ( phones and tablets over Wifi)   Some pretend ( NAS and printer) some don't (Roku sticks,  AVR and 2 cameras( one brand new)) but all the computers do ( Windows 7,10 and a couple of Raspberry PIs).     Smart TVs will have to wait for the next buying spree.

I have been using Rogers 6RD for a few years and now the real thing since the day it hit my area.

I have ShowIP and therefore see the IP address of the website I am connected to.   SLowly but surely more and more sites  are showing I am connected IPV6.  

[VivienM]

---

@JKnott wrote:

---

@VivienM wrote:

---

(Say what you want about Microsoft or Apple, but at least they were shipping a fully-supported IPv6 stack almost 10 years ago... how many smart TVs sold at Best Buy today have IPv6 support?)

---

I don't know much about Macs, but full IPv6 support didn't hit Windows until XP SP3.  Not sure when that was.  My Nextbox 3 PVR appears to support IPv6.  A lot of networking stuff appears first in Linux & BSD, so anything that runs those have a head start, if the developers choose to implement it.  Also, you mentioned the AMD 64 bit CPU.  Support for it first appeared on Linux and there was a 64 bit Linux for the DEC Alpha, followed shortly after for the PowerPC, about 20 years  ago.  The reason Itanium failed was inertia.  People just didn't want to move from the "Wintel" universe, bad as it was.

---

I was actually counting full IPv6 support in Windows land as having launched with Vista, which RTMed late 2006 and hit retail availability in early 2007, IIRC. So 'almost 10 years ago'. If XP SP3 had a more mature IPv6 stack than I remember, that would likely push the date up a bit more.

As for Itanium vs amd64, Itanium was intended as a full redesign of the x86 architecture. New processors (with somewhat poor emulation of existing x86), need for new OSes, new boot mechanism, new everything that would fix all the problems of the creaky 20+ year old IBM PC-compatible x86 platform. 

Then AMD came along with amd64. Quick and dirty kludge to extend x86 to 64-bit rather than fix any of the deeper problems. Processors 100% compatible with the existing 32-bit x86 ecosystem. People started buying them to run 32-bit XP. Then they started running 32-bit Vista. Then slowly people started running the actual 64-bit Windows version on x64 hardware. By the time Win7 came out, essentially all consumer machines and a good chunk of businesses were using the 64-bit version.

Point is - the quick and dirty kludge won out over the ambitious attempt to fix everything. To get back to the IPv6 point, I think some quick and dirty 'solution' implemented in 1997 would have been universally deployed 15 years ago... i.e. 10+ years before actually running out of IPv4 addresses. Instead, the IPv6 designers pushed on with their ambitious complete redesign of everything... and now we are in a world where everything will probably be running dual-stack behind IPv4 NAT (including carrier-grade NAT) for at least another decade, maybe two... and that's assuming that all vendors of smart TVs, 'wifi-enabled' digital cameras, ebook readers, streaming TV boxes, etc. started shipping IPv6 code tomorrow. 

Frankly, unless a government was to actually ban the sale of IPv4-only devices at a particular date, I don't even see what incentive the smart TV and ebook reader vendors have to support IPv6 tomorrow. Only a very minor set of buyers will ever pay attention to whether something supports IPv6... 

[RogersDave]

---

@howi wrote:

My question is that if the Manual DNS settings will support IPv6 ones in the next firmware release? I have tried with the Google (2001:4860:4860::8888), but it will reject the format at this moment.

---

I just tested and you are right, there doesn't seem to be a way to override the DNSv6 settings. I will report this feedback.