Interface/Prefix LAN Delegated Prefix 2001:1c02:1100:fd00::/64
WAN IPv6 Address: fe80::7277:81ff:xxxx:xxxx/64 2001:1c02:1100:0:815e:4c13:xxxx:xxxx/128 IPv6 MTU Size: 1500 IPv4 Address: 83.85.196.65 MAC Address: 70:77:xx:xx:xx:xx Duration D: 07 H: 00 M: 00 S: 00 Expires: Mon Dec 05 14:23:29 2016
IPv4 DNS Servers: 89.101.251.228 89.101.251.229 IPv6 DNS Servers: 2001:b88:1002::10 2001:b88:1202::10 2001:730:3e42:1000::53
WAN Connection Type: DHCP
I x't out part of some of the addresses and MACs. The only thing I can change here is the IPv4 local address (192.198.178.1).
As you can see, the prefix assigned to me is a /56. From the /56, the first /64 is assigned to the LAN by prefix delegation.
The HTML interface BTW is the only way to access thr outer. No SSH interface...
NB> though quick searches of the TWC forums seem to mention a /56. But it NB> seems my router is only giving me a /64 as well. Granted, I'm using NB> the "Native" connection type, and also using DHCP-PD. If I disable NB> either one of the two, I am able to input my own data and request NB> different sized prefix lengths.
Then you can do more than I can.
NB> Since I don't really see a reason at the moment to need 256 subnets NB> for less than 20 devices.. I probably won't dive into it much further NB> at this time.
Same here and I have less than 10 devices connected. I do not need more han a /64. Presently. I say "presently" because it it IPv4 think. IPv6 was designed to give "end connections" the ability to devide their network into subnets. Subnets that can be isolated and firewalled off from each other.
What about a guest subnet? You want your guests to have full internet access, but you do not want them in the same subnet as the computer you use for banking do you? And your internet of things.. You want those smart devices in a seperate subnet. Same for your car when it is in dock....
MV>> You get that speed on both IPv4 and IPv6?
NB> Looks like my IPv6 speed test is a little bit faster. 61.2mb/s (IPv4) NB> vs. 62.5mb/s (IPv6). Not really much of a difference, but looks like I NB> do indeed get that speed on both. This was also tested on NB> ipv6-test.com/speedtest and the nearest testing location for me was in NB> the UK.
Your provider does not have a speedtest of its own?
MV>>>> Like that the web interface of the modem is not reaceable via MV>>>> IPv6. So this box is not usable in an IPv6 only environment...
NB> I don't think I've ever even tried this. While my router has it's own NB> IPv6 address, I can't seem to connect to the router's web config via NB> IPv6 either.
How about SSH?
MV>> I have tried them all. The web interface only responds at IPv4. MV>> No big deal. Yet... But of course in future equipment should be MV>> manageable via IPv6.
NB> I'm sure it will. But as long as the router handles dual stack, it's NB> most likely not an issue.
Not yet. But it will be an issue in the future. And I don't understand why they didn't make the web interface dual stack right away. HTML over IPv6 isn't rocket science. It is usually easier to do such things right away from scratch than to have to add it later.
That probably illustrates one of the propblems with IPv6. Lots of developers are still stuck in IPv4 think. IPv6 is added as an afterthought...
NB> If "please.send.me.somewhere.cool" was a viable address, even that NB> could be used to access your router inside your LAN.
Some might want to access it from outside. (Not me..)
