MV> Interface/Prefix MV> LAN Delegated Prefix 2001:1c02:1100:fd00::/64
MV> WAN MV> IPv6 Address: fe80::7277:81ff:xxxx:xxxx/64 MV> 2001:1c02:1100:0:815e:4c13:xxxx:xxxx/128 MV> IPv6 MTU Size: 1500 MV> IPv4 Address: 83.85.196.65 MV> MAC Address: 70:77:xx:xx:xx:xx MV> Duration D: 07 H: 00 M: 00 S: 00 MV> Expires: Mon Dec 05 14:23:29 2016
MV> IPv4 DNS Servers: 89.101.251.228 MV> 89.101.251.229 MV> IPv6 DNS Servers: 2001:b88:1002::10 MV> 2001:b88:1202::10 MV> 2001:730:3e42:1000::53
MV> WAN Connection Type: DHCP
MV> I x't out part of some of the addresses and MACs. The only thing I can MV> change here is the IPv4 local address (192.198.178.1).
My router doesn't even give that much information under the "Native" setting. If I were to do things manually, it would give much more.
MV> As you can see, the prefix assigned to me is a /56. From the /56, the MV> first /64 is assigned to the LAN by prefix delegation.
From what I've read on the TWC forums, they assign you a /64, which is what my router shows. However, if you wish to request a /56 you can do it manually.
MV> The HTML interface BTW is the only way to access thr outer. No SSH MV> interface...
I can enable SSH to the router (ie: there is settings), but I left that off for now.
NB>> though quick searches of the TWC forums seem to mention a /56. NB>> But it seems my router is only giving me a /64 as well. Granted, NB>> I'm using the "Native" connection type, and also using DHCP-PD. NB>> If I disable either one of the two, I am able to input my own NB>> data and request different sized prefix lengths.
MV> Then you can do more than I can.
Well, this is only theory, as I haven't tried (or had the need) to go any further.
NB>> Since I don't really see a reason at the moment to need 256 NB>> subnets for less than 20 devices.. I probably won't dive into it NB>> much further at this time.
MV> Same here and I have less than 10 devices connected. I do not need MV> more han a /64. Presently. I say "presently" because it it IPv4 think. MV> IPv6 was designed to give "end connections" the ability to devide MV> their network into subnets. Subnets that can be isolated and MV> firewalled off from each other.
MV> What about a guest subnet? You want your guests to have full internet MV> access, but you do not want them in the same subnet as the computer MV> you use for banking do you? And your internet of things.. You want MV> those smart devices in a seperate subnet. Same for your car when it is MV> in dock....
There are also settings for a "guest network" which I currently have disabled. I don't allow many guests on my network, and the ones I do I know quite well (ie: my sister, who only asks for my password when she's at my house so her wifi works on her phone). However, if I were to set things up that way, I would probably re-flash my router with openwrt which allows for much more manual intervention.
MV> Your provider does not have a speedtest of its own?
It does, but it's only IPv4. And doing that test gives me about the same results for IPv4 as the other test did.
NB>> I don't think I've ever even tried this. While my router has it's NB>> own IPv6 address, I can't seem to connect to the router's web NB>> config via IPv6 either.
MV> How about SSH?
Haven't tried it. So far I haven't had a need to enable SSH as the web interface has everything I've needed so far.
NB>> I'm sure it will. But as long as the router handles dual stack, NB>> it's most likely not an issue.
MV> Not yet. But it will be an issue in the future. And I don't understand MV> why they didn't make the web interface dual stack right away. HTML MV> over IPv6 isn't rocket science. It is usually easier to do such things MV> right away from scratch than to have to add it later.
I'm not sure what the issue(s) would be in the future. As long as the router itself supports dual stack, it's only a LAN IPv4 address, which wouldn't matter if you actually had functional IPv4 outside your LAN or not. Obviously if you wanted to access your router from outside the LAN (not me), it would present a problem.
However, I agree that they should have added it all right away. Though it makes me wonder if they're all learning as they go just like us. Implementing one thing and fully testing it, then implementing another and fully testing, etc.
MV> That probably illustrates one of the propblems with IPv6. Lots of MV> developers are still stuck in IPv4 think. IPv6 is added as an MV> afterthought...
Hasn't that always been the case (IPv6 being an afterthought)? At the time IPv4 was created, they had no idea they would ever need something more.
NB>> If "please.send.me.somewhere.cool" was a viable address, even NB>> that could be used to access your router inside your LAN.
MV> Some might want to access it from outside. (Not me..)
Agreed. My router would never be open to the public.
Regards, Nick
... "Не знаю. Я здесь только работаю." --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20160827 * Origin: thePharcyde_ distribution system (Wisconsin) (1:154/10)
