not to mention that average consumers are already happy with nat and wifi
they just want something "good enough"
exactly
which sucks
my friends don't even mind shared internet that cuts out all the time
because they use some crappy nat router which ends up having too large a state table
so many bad things
the problem is that consumers today can still easily pick up brand new modems and routers which don't support ipv6
not to mention people still using windows xp
i wish there was a better way to incentivise people to upgrade but it would require some revolutionary new features
and the price would have to be right
my modem doesn't support ipv6
ipv6 tends to slow down the net atm
so i'm not that keen on ipv6 myself yet
oh really?
you mean it slows down ipv4 browsing?
i just use routed ip addresses
nah worse routing
oh
i believe that
is there still a lot of backbone infrastructure that doesn't support it?
im guessing this isn't a fundamental problem
well there's less peering of ipv6 than ipv4
well yea
and cdn's that do ipv6 can have worse routes
i dunno, firewalling is my biggest concern with ipv6 for home users
how come?
it shouldn't be any worse than ipv4
well nat saves a lot of people atm
a lot of people when they firewalls do ipv4 onyl firewalls
if they add ipv6 they don't necessarily add firewalls to ipv6
but no one plugs directly into ipv6
err
the internet
people often use nat for security atm
but a router that is ipv6 enabled is just as secure by default
and they only get nat on the router
the router may be
any sane router manufacturer would be
but the hosts behind it get direct net access when they had nat'ed access before
on that note upnp isn't good :)
i don't see how they could make such a novice mistake
hmm, i haven't seen an ipv6 modem yet
plus, i see plenty of people dmz machines for no good reason
but in built firewalls on modems have never been great
since when do modems incorporate a firewall?
i take that back, i completely disabled it last time i had one
because it's stupid
most people have wireless routers these days and you can be sure the manufacturers will put sane default firewall policies on those
people who work around them usually did so with ipv4 anyway
i dunno adsl is common here and all in one units
and people leave wps enabled
yes, but those have built in firewalls
if they supported ipv6 they would also have default policies
enabled by default?
maybe
we'll see :)
it's prob a few years off anyway
well, if they don't then that company deserves to die
they all come from china
who don't even do reverse dns on their ip's
the firmware usually doesn't though?
hmm
actually that's a point, it originally ocmes from broadcom etc
yea
my modem started misbehaving last night with high pings
honestly, i think manufacturers will get it right since they have seen what has happened in the past
i tried to track down what was causing it and couldn't find aynthing
i rebooted and it was better
probably crap firmware
rebooted modem that is
lol
i was stumped
but i don't even have iptables
yea, that's a problem
you have to disable the firewall by changing firewall=yes to firewall=no in the xml file
lol
err you download backup config file
and reupload
it doesn't seem to have anything on web interface to disable firewall
id unno why but connections die randomly otherwise
that sounds awful
it's got 32mb of ram, so it hasn't really got an excuse
connection limit of around 3000 i think
hahaha
but you don't need lots of connections for them to randomly die
like ssh would die if you don't type on it and go and make a coffee and come back
unless it's something like irc that receives a little bit of data often
that sucks
yes
very annoying very quickly
my cable modems have been pretty stable actually
im quite pleased
they're briding?
bridging?
yea
yeh that's safer
i don't use consumer crap as a gateway
i use a virtual machine as a router
i actually know quite a few people who do that
actually my desktop just goes direct
and i tried it for some time but it just doesn't make sense to me
wifi goes through router
err through modem
with no nat
i see
you get multiple ipv4's?
well i'm transparently proxying wifi traffic
yeh
now that sounds kinda awesome
can't do that on cable
i've only got a /29
i'm sure they could do it
yea they could
actually
well a /32 and a /29
the /29 routes to the /32
i might be able to just grab 4 dhcp leases
i'm wasting an ip really
eww dhcp
yup
can't you get a statici ip?
not without paying for business class service
with ipv6 i just treat it as static though
and take what i want
i don't give a fuck
haha
and that works?
yep
so they cna't track you?
their routers don't enforce an ip per mac address
but they only assign one
the problem is that someone could get a lease over top of your arbitrarily allocated static block
but ill take that risk
i might do it with ipv4 but i don't know how well that would work
im sure the address space is pretty congested and hard to guess out
i don't really care much though, i just want to be able to use slaac on two interfaces for ipv6
so i need two /64's
however, comcast only allocates one
oh they assign a dynamic /64?
yes
they give the wan a /128 lease and then send it a /64 to allocate to the lan segment
and that works, but i have multiple network segments
i usually have two different nat'd ipv4 segments
there isn't really a good way to do that with ipv6 unfortunately
i mean, i could do nat'd ipv6
but that's just rediculous
you need a /64 per network
which actually drives me a little crazy
i mean, yea we have 2^128 addresses now
but we are effectively limited to 2^64 gateways
it should really be 2^80
err
2^79
theoretically the space behind the gateway is only limited to mac addresses
and those are only 48 bits
of course they decided to expand that to 64 bits
which to me seems stupid
< mercutio> like ssh would die if you don't type on it and go and make a coffee and come back  <-- that's due to TCP timeouts in your NAT setup, which can be changed (or you can setup keepalives in your SSH client).
jlg: yeh but there's no way to fix it easily on the modem
it's "broken" behaviour
disabling iptables fixed tings
It's your modem timing out the NAT translation due to no traffic... which keepalives will fix.  But okay.
yeh but the modem's meant to just route traffic
i wasn't using nat
up_the_irons: In case you are around, my Arpnetworks VPS leto seems to have a bit of a problem talking IPv4 to another VPS of mine - http://paste.ubuntu.com/1197889/
(IPv6 on the other hand works just perfect.)
up_the_irons: Also did some tcpdumping, the other VPS halleck actually sees, and replies to, the packages from my Arpnetworks VPS leto. Let on the other hand doesn't see any packages from halleck.
up_the_irons: Well, kind of works as it should again now, so not sure if there are much to look at presently.