How much of ipv6 implemented?

  • how much of ipv6 is actually implemented in the 2.0 release.  I know the wiki says full ipv6 would be implemented after 2.0…

  • There is a thread in the forum discussing this. People have IPv6 working for basic input and output functions and some services. You can use gitsync to pull in the new IPv6 code and test it on top of the current 2.0 RC1 (or at least you could when it was beta as of a few weeks ago) and there's a tutorial telling you how to get it configured. I haven't used it. Sounds rough around the edges but for a start I'd say they've made good headway. Since technically, 2.0 isn't even out yet (still "RC" :-)

  • In the official 2.0 which will see release, None. There is just a single IPv6 toggle on the advanced page that either globally blocks all IPv6 traffic or let's it through entirely.

    The 2.0 from my git repo does not automatically set this control. I'll activate that on upgrade at a later time.

    Basic firewalling, addressing, and some services work already. I'm tackling those 1 by 1.

  • I am following the news on changes very closely and appreciate the job being done.

    The change to IPv6 is a huge change - I am not sure if people realize how big this actually is! Having IP addresses available for anything you ever could imagine, and official addresses, not private ranges, will change the way we do things on the internet. It also has the potential of becoming a security nightmare if firewalling is not done right, and on top of that, we still have to handle IPv6 to IPv4 because most of us have stuff that will never have IPv6.

    And still I see big ISP talking about IPv6 as if it was optional… Feels like they are trying to stop the rain...

    Databeestje - Thank you for the work you are doing! It will put pfSense at the top when it comes to choosing a firewall/router that will be the best for the future!

  • @Oceanwatcher:

    And still I see big ISP talking about IPv6 as if it was optional… Feels like they are trying to stop the rain...

    The cable company I work for is have a lot of meetings on how to provide this to customers. Usually we wait until other cable company deploy then learn from their mistakes. Biggest topic is how many IPs to give to a non-commercial customer. We don't want them running web sites out of there house, that's what commercial accounts are for. And security/firewall is a hot topic. We can only educate our non-commercial customers so much.

    Should be interesting to see what the out come is going to be.

  • Oh yes - I forgot that part :-) One of the reasons why some of the big ones are dragging their feet is also that they earn A LOT of money from charging extra for official IP addresses.

    How many addresses should a non commercial have? Give each one a /64 subnet - don't try to create artificial limits. It is a new world - deal with it. If someone want to set up a server at home - let them do it. I think ISP's should realise that what they provied is a connection. What this connection is used for - reading the newspaper, watching TV, listening to radio, online purchases, research, running your own server for your blog - that should all be up to the person paying for the line.

    You can differenciate on the guaranteed quality you are offering - commercial customers could get two lines in through different connection points so it is less likely they will loose connection - home users will obviously only have one line and multiple single points of failure. Also, a home user line is always oversold - I don't know any ISP that actually has enough bandwith to give full speed to all customers at the same time. A commercial customer could receive minimum guarantees of bandwith/speed.

    There are ways to differentiate commercial and home users. But it should never be on what they can do with their line. That would be like Ford denying you to carry tools that you use at work in your car because it was not bought as a commercial vehicle.

Log in to reply