Kitz Forum
Broadband Related => ISPs => Topic started by: Weaver on June 12, 2018, 02:52:16 PM
-
How many Kitizens have native (or tunnelled!) IPv6 now?
The big ISPs are starting to really move, some of them anyway, so I hear anyway, after waiting and waiting until things got really bad.
-
I'm with BT and had it enabled for over a year now since I upgraded away from the HomeHub 5 which couldn't support IPv6 at the time (not sure if it still can?).
-
I am still waiting for native so using tunneled for the moment.
-
Native IPv6, obviously with AAISP.
-
Uh I don't xd
IPv6 at Bezeq International
Bezeq International's leading Internet network supports the IPV6 protocol for its business customers through advanced server farms and transmission connectivity.
Bezeq International's core network is connected by IPv6 to the world's largest telecommunications providers and to communications providers in Israel that support IPv6.
There's another ISP that has IPv6 but I'll remain for now.
-
with Sky. Native Ipv6 for yonks. Works just fine.
-
would you all be surprised that plusnet don't do IPv6 ?? ;D
-
Sorry if this is noobish but what are the benefits with IPv6 ?
-
I don't have a clue either how it's going to affect things eirher ???
-
http://www.ipv6now.com.au/whyipv6.php
-
Thanks for the link, so its more secure and cheaper for the isp ;)
So i wont notice anything really
-
it's more a case of that there aren't any IPv4 IP addresses left.
-
will everyone be forced onto ipv6 then ? And will ipv4 be deleted for ever ?
-
I'm surprised the PS4 and PS4 Pro don't have any IPv6 capability, which Xbox One X does.
Is IPv6 something that can be patched in with software to the PS4?
-
I'm surprised the PS4 and PS4 Pro don't have any IPv6 capability, which Xbox One X does.
Is IPv6 something that can be patched in with software to the PS4?
The PS4 does work with IPV6.
My PS4 obtains an IPV6 address when I connect it to my network.
They just haven't made PSN work with IPV6 yet.
The hardware supports it though, it just need turned on.
-
Sorry if this is noobish but what are the benefits with IPv6 ?
You'll start to miss out when there are more sites like this one: http://loopsofzen.co.uk
-
Aint working :P
-
http://www.ipv6now.com.au/whyipv6.php
From your link 3.4 x 1038 = 340 trillion trillion trillion addresses - about 670 quadrillion addresses per square millimetre of the Earth's surface.
Is that worse than being covered in concrete, like the NIMBYs shout about building ;D?
-
Aint working :P
ditto
-
ditto
Exactly!!
-
although with an IPv6 tunnel that is easily fixed.
-
Aint working :P
That's because your ISP is not providing full internet access and is not allowing you to access the IP address 2001:8b0:0:30::666:102
-
The PS4 does work with IPV6.
My PS4 obtains an IPV6 address when I connect it to my network.
They just haven't made PSN work with IPV6 yet.
The hardware supports it though, it just need turned on.
How do you know it does?
I've not seen anyone else say the PS4 obtains a IPv6 address to be able to connect online.
On the View Connection Status it only lists a IPv4 address.
On the Xbox One X it lists both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.
-
There are a lot of technical benefits with IPv6 but those mainly affect software designers and sysadmins. Some of them are the end of NAT so that peer-to-peer apps work and more reliable initialisation on the LAN with no need for dhcp and full use of link-local addresses, also all apps tend to have multiple addresses per interface. Privacy addresses help errm privacy.
Users will never notice any difference. IPv6 is ~1.4% slower (because of increased header size).
In the future IPv4-only users may start to find there are more and more services that they cannot access, but this may in some cases be covered up by the placement of translation boxes.
As some of you found out just now, there are already some nodes that you cannot reach if you are ISP-only, but very few, so indeed as mentioned earlier, your ISP is not giving you a full service to “the internet”, well there have been two internets for a long time of course, over 15 years.
Most software defaults to using the IPv6 internet (why?) if it has a choice of ways to access a destination. If you use say Google or Facebook and you have IPv6 then your software will most likely be using IPv6 to talk to them exclusively.
-
Is it possible to release a firmware update for devices to allow them to be IPv6 compatible?
If its not possible then thats going to be a lot of Internet oriented devices become useless.
-
Is it possible to release a firmware update for devices to allow them to be IPv6 compatible?
If its not possible then thats going to be a lot of Internet oriented devices become useless.
everything is possible, but whether it is worth the time and money to write and test an update is the real question.
the vast majority of home routers have a limited lifespan, and are not worth spending any time or money on at all.
it'll be more cost effective to simply replace than to patch and update.
-
Why patch them when the ISPs can make money (directly or indirectly) by replacements? For example when Plusnet launch IPv6 they could say they are giving out IPv6 enabled routers for the cost of postage only - but only if the user agrees to a new 18 month contract.
-
@Bowdon
Probably it is. I seem to remember seeing one model of expensive device that was upgraded by a software change. There is nothing that requires hardware changes for IPv6, it is all a matter or software, unless you have hardware acceleration in the device that is tied to IPv4 and which will be useless when presented with IPv6 because it doesn't understand the addresses or the protocol header formats. Stuff to do longest-prefix-match for routing, or content-addressable / associative memory, firewall matching accelerators that kind of thing. Indeed the bugs in the HG612, ZyXEL modem-routers and other devices that are all caused by their common Broadcom core hardware and software components, mentioned in other threads recently, were I think linked to hardware accelerators.
There are several things: firstly the new combined IPv4+IPv6 protocol stack, where IPv4 behaviour is sometimes upgraded in that it is handled using the enhanced algorithms used for IPv6. This happened in Windows Vista: WinXp had IPv6 code that was rather separate from the unchanged existing IPv4 code and was like an add-on, but in Vista from what I understand the whole lot was thrown out and a new combined piece of code based on IPv6 new wisdom was used to handle both, in the same way, as far as possible. The second thing is the matter of dealing with the awkward details of having two protocols and selecting which to use. Aside from the o/s: Web browsers have had to deal with the question of what to do if someone has a rubbish tunnelled IPv6 service and although the general opinion seems to be that IPv6 should be preferred (why?) then if it turns out to be rubbish the application needs to change its mind and go for IPv4. So it is a matter of which actually works. Some web browsers race the two protocols and whichever is the fastest to get started up wins. Quite a bit has been written about this. This issue could affect an o/s http library though and also can affect DNS where you may have a choice of which protocol to use to do DNS lookups.
Thirdly, the whole business of acquiring IPv6 addresses is different, with robust auto-config and no more reliance on DHCP or manual static configuration. ARP is rena
IPv6 mandates support for IPSEC, which is something new. I don't know how many o/s designer follow this ruling though. Mobile IPv6 is very nice (where you can move from one subnet to another and keep the same IPv6 addresses so that conversations/flows remain unbroken), the result of a lot of thought. However not so many operating systems seem to have it. Systems developed in the far east seem to be more enthusiastic.
Systems also have to get their minds right because multiple IP addresses per individuainterface are now commonplace.
Because IPv6 link-local addresses are now supported properly and handled properly by operating systems and apps (even though there is a link-local address range for IPv4 169.254.0.0/16 RFC 3927 it was more than a tad too late, and designers do not know how to handle it, whether to treat it as special, the way it should be, or not) there is now for the first time the issue of duplicate matching link-local addresses on different interfaces in the same machine. Apps and operatingsystems need some way to talk about these unambiguously or else there is chaos. Scope identifiers are used for this. Microsoft use the syntax eg fe80:db8::b011:0c5%8 when externalising IP addresses where the part after the percent sign is the interface identifier, an index into a table of attached interfaces.
At L5 and above, web browsers, web servers and operating systems’ http subsystems have had to deal with the embarrassment that a colon in a URL already means something, it is syntactically a ‘taken’ character, because it is already used for a port number, and in a numeric IPv6 address, hex digits can look like a domain name so numeric IPv6 addresses have to be wrapped in [ ] eg http://[2001:db8::]:8080/whatever. This required a new web standard, enhancing the spec of the syntax of the URL.
Manufacturers want to encourage new sales, so little incentive to upgrade software. Also because so many home routers nowadays include wireless that makes them become dated after a while and it is that which tends to push people towards upgrading, the continual innovation in wireless LAN technologies, fantastic things such as beamforming, better MIMO, higher speeds and enhanced multi-WAP coordination and handover protocols and goodness knows what else.
-
How do you know it does?
I've not seen anyone else say the PS4 obtains a IPv6 address to be able to connect online.
On the View Connection Status it only lists a IPv4 address.
On the Xbox One X it lists both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses.
My modem shows it does.
The Netflix app also shows IPV6.
-
Native with sky, and before that had it native with plusnet on their trial.
VM are rolling it out soon, but using some form of tunneling for ipv4 with it, so its gonna get interesting for VM customers.
-
My modem shows it does.
The Netflix app also shows IPV6.
I had a search around for netflix on ps4 with ipv6 and found this thread : https://community.playstation.com/content/pdc/us/en_US/pdc-communities/playstation-general.topic.html/ipv6_psn_and_youc-bUKX.html (https://community.playstation.com/content/pdc/us/en_US/pdc-communities/playstation-general.topic.html/ipv6_psn_and_youc-bUKX.html)
It seems that at some level the ps4 does have a basic ipv6 function. But its not being utilised, even though the ipv6 is assigned to it.
I did an experiment like someone said at the end message on the first page. I went to http://ipv6-test.com/ (http://ipv6-test.com/) using the ps4 pro browser and it came back that it didn't have ipv6. I then booted up the xbox one x browser and went to that page. It passed fully with ipv6.
-
Pretty much what I said above.
The hardware supports it. It obtains an IPV6 address.
PSN just need to enable it on their servers.
It will only really help those with NAT issue on IPV4. Obviously not a priority for Sony.
That threads nearly 4 years old so I wouldn't hold my breath on it being enabled anytime soon.
-
ipv6-test.com is nothing to do with PSN servers tho.
The issue is really with sony been stuck in the stone age and not implementing support for it on the sony OS.
However with large isps like VM considering ISP side NAT on ipv4, it might wake them up.
-
Rather than stupid ISP-side NAT with IPv4 it is possible for IPv6-only users to access IPv4 servers (https://aa.net.uk/kb-broadband-ipv6-nat64.html) out on the internet. I think it might be called something like Trick-or-Treat, but I really do not remember.
-
Surely that must do ISP NAT? It must present an IPv4 address to the server you are trying to contact and that can only be allocated by the gateway.
-
Indeed it is NAT but done with IPv6 not with IPv4. A server at the ISP generates lies in the responses to DNS lookups so the doing a DNS lookup for an IPv4-only server gets lied to and told that the IPv4-only server in question has an IPv6 address. That IPv6 address is that of the protocol converter box at the ISP. The ISP has to then convert the outgoing requesting into IPv4 using some IPv4 source address owned by the ISP assigned to the protocol converter box. So this has the some of the same problems as NAT in IPv4, one being the problem where a client mentions its own address in the messages it exchanges with the machine at the other end. The terms DNS64 and NAT64 are used to describe this trickery. It often works well enough in practice so I am told. A small number of Andrews and Arnold users are using it in order to go completely IPv6-only.
Apparently Microsoft’s internal corporate network is well on the way to going completely IPv6 only and this has meant putting the screws in some equipment suppliers to get them to fix awful stupid bugs. They have found that some kit can speak IPv6 but actually freaks out occasionally in a truly IPv6-only environment. Microsoft is fed up with having to do everything wide, like security policy twice and firewalling config twice with more than twice the risk of screwing it up because one side may never actually get tested properly. They offer an isolated guest WLAN for visitors so that the visitors can contact their home base, and lots of the visitors have been moaning because their kit or software, particularly VPNs and firewall-related systems freak out when they have only IPv6 even though they thought they were good with IPv6 because IPv6 traffic had been successfully flowing and might even have become preferred yet when IPv4 was taken away they found that some small stupid things were still relying on it. So some of these visitors were moaning. That then meant that Microsoft’s network engineers needed to lean on suppliers to get fixes done pdq. Microsoft is probably sufficiently enormous that they have enough muscle to get suppliers to actually get on and make required changes and not take a year or so about it.
-
* So how many Kitizens does that make, I need to do another count?
* Anyone else want to put their hand up?
* And which ISPs do we have now?
Zen took an absolute age to pull their finger out. `that is one reason why after using them for a year I did not go with them, because I got fed up with the excuses, vague muttering and the waiting for IPv6. It was a good job I didn't wait any longer because it took them another five years or something like that. Does anyone know what the story is with Zen?
-
As I mentioned, I'm migrating to IDNet on the 26th June. Once I'm up and running on IPv4 I'll be enabling IPv6, and the runes suggest it should be straightforward.
-
With a modern router it is just a piece of cake because every modern o/s even going back as far as twelve years ago supports IPv6 very well indeed, as do all modern web browsers going back to then. Facebook is all IPv6 internally. Google speaks IPv6. A huge number of other similar networks have been speaking IPv6 ever since World IPv6 Launch Day in 2012 when the participants switched on IPv6 permanently.
My own personal domains, their DNS and my email servers are all IPv6.
However, confession time: I am too confused and fatigued to maintain a proper personal website there is the rotten apple in that there is an A record pointing to an IPv4-only web server.
-
Native IPv6 with Zen. /48 prefix. All works brilliantly.
-
Native IPv6 here with AAISP
-
I am not really sure why ISPs are giving out /48s to customers, even domestic ones all the time. It is rather worrying. At that rate we could be starting to eat the IPv6 address space up after a few decades because of the sheer amount of wasteage. Mind you a change of heart means that the remaining space could be allocated much more responsibly by a policy change later on.
I would have thought that a /60 would be good for most domestic users and a /56 for small businesses unless they have serious expansion plans or there is some risk that they could expand because having to renumber your network because of short-sighted allocation in the first place is fairly unforgivable in my view. Renumbering is just hassle we do not need and a total waste of time and money.
I doubt that I will ever end up with 16 sites or LANs, but in case there could be some phenomenon or development that I cannot see at the moment then perhaps a /56 for me would be slightly safer. But unless I become some kind of vast corporate one day, how am I ever going to end up with 65535 LANs / sites?
Am I just not getting it? AA the ISP has a /32 and that is the standard allocation for an ISP. (I would have thought that some organisations would want some contiguous ones to make a slightly shorter prefix - bigger contiguous address space so as to keep firewalling and aggregation nice and neat.) Basically that means that, unless there are some mini-ISPs, ISPs or other organisations that get a smaller allocation, have to share a /32 each taking a subset of it = getting a longer prefix, then there will only be room for something rather less than 232 ISPs, a bit like the old IPv4 internet but with the unit being 1 ISP not one tin box.
And AA can only have 64k customers then if they are always giving every one a /48 whether they need it or not. If they start to run out then they will have to reduce the over-generous allocation massively, reducing it to /56 gives them room for 256 times more customers or they could start handing out /60s ie 4096 times more customers something like room for 128 million if they changed over st the halfway point.
I wonder what the big ISPs are doing. The likes of BT are going to have to do something more sensible either now or in the future unless they either start out with a bigger allocation from RIPE than a /32, or else they do not follow the standard IMHO dumb advice of giving every user a /48 willy-nilly. I think even BT can work out that they need a lot more than 64k customers, and giving out /56s gives them what 16 million customers which might be risky so if I were BT I would try and get a bigger subnet than a /32 and give out /60s and /56s with /48s to business users who are actual companies or users who have any risk at all of serious growth.
-
I agree. There is no reason that I will need 65,536 /64 networks at home. Even the largest enterprises won't need that many. Anything more than a /60 for an EU is just wasteful.
-
Weaver I had the same thoughts.
These are what I concluded after I watched videos about these questions been raised to the ipv6 architects and responses given back by isp's.
1 - The reason /64 is the smallest prefix is that if there was smaller prefixes then routing tables would get overloaded.
2 - In reference to isp's giving out things like /48 to consumers? No reasonable answer has been provided, so I consider it akin to the early days of ipv4 where the attitude was everything is plentiful so its fine.
3 - Sky have given a reason for providing a /56 instead of a /64, their reason was in the future they want the option to split the ipv6 internally on their customers networks for network segregation, guest wifi etc, things like that I am assuming. since /64 is the smallest prefix, then /56 would be required for them to do that.
-
plusnet (obviously) don't currently support IPv6.
i would happily move to an ISP that did if they could provide me with the same service i currently get at the same price point, however as of yet i've not found any
they would need to provide me
80/20 FTTC
totally unlimited
1 static IP address
allow use of any modem/router
sub-£20pm for just the FTTC
not stipulate that i must also have voice service with them
i can usually find an ISP that can give some of those requirements, but never all of them, and almost none at that price point regardless of requirements.
-
i can usually find an ISP that can give some of those requirements, but never all of them, and almost none at that price point regardless of requirements.
Not quite at that price point but I get all of that with Zen for £36 a month (line rental included). Static IP is included for free.
-
the crucial part there is (line rental included) which can't be part of any deal that i have.
also don't know how you've got it at that price from Zen, as their listed price for 80/20 with line rental is £43.99
your £36pm is most likely 40/10
broadband only from Zen 80/20 is £34 (for first year then increasing to £37pm). as you can see quite a price difference compared to plusnet. and i don't value IPv6 support at an extra £14-£17pm.
-
your £36pm is most likely 40/10
80/20.
# xdslcmd info
xdslcmd: ADSL driver and PHY status
Status: Showtime
Retrain Reason: 1
Last initialization procedure status: 0
Max: Upstream rate = 23414 Kbps, Downstream rate = 87596 Kbps
Bearer: 0, Upstream rate = 19999 Kbps, Downstream rate = 79999 Kbps
Bearer: 1, Upstream rate = 0 Kbps, Downstream rate = 0 Kbps
It was through this deal.
https://blog.thebigdeal.com/faqs-broadband-deal-zen/
-
still £16pm per month more than what i pay, and i don't value IPv6 support at £16pm extra even with line rental included (which can't be part of any deal i take).
also, at the time i was looking Zen weren't getting particulary good reviews, but that was irrelevant as the price was out of the question.
-
Well you get what you pay for, plusnet are budget orientated now and is pushing more of a no frills service now days, ipv4 only fits into that philosophy.
-
indeed, that's why i said i didn't value IPv6 at £16pm extra.
-
indeed, that's why i said i didn't value IPv6 at £16pm extra.
Can't be that much, surely? You must be paying someone for line rental?
-
line rental is paid, but not by me, hence the separation of services.
-
@Chrysalis giving a /56 to a single LAN? I have assumed that some kit would freak out at that, believing that the only possibility was a /64. Mind you, if that were the case, then you could just override it and tell the devices that it was a /64 anyway. But is their network addressing dynamic ? If so, you would not be able to override it with a different statically configured value.
-
line rental is paid, but not by me, hence the separation of services.
And the payer will only deal with BT, for what ever reason?
-
@Chrysalis giving a /56 to a single LAN? I have assumed that some kit would freak out at that, believing that the only possibility was a /64. Mind you, if that were the case, then you could just override it and tell the devices that it was a /64 anyway. But is their network addressing dynamic ? If so, you would not be able to override it with a different statically configured value.
sky assign a /56 but the kit sets up a /64 on the LAN.
-
And the payer will only deal with BT, for what ever reason?
not BT necessarily, but line rental and broadband to remain separate bills.
the whole bundled services market is really quite anti-consumer, as you are almost forced into putting all your services with one company, if you don't then you get penalised in price. the bundled services idea is being used against the customer when it was supposed to be a gain for the customer.
it's really quite a bad idea to have all your eggs in one basket really.
-
Regarding the discussion of IPv6 assignments, the IETF stopped recommending that all end-users get a /48 in 2011 - see RFC6177 (http://"https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6177").
However, I don't think any UK ISP would run out of IPv6 addresses even if they did all continue giving each customer a /48.
IIUC, RIPE reserve a /29 for each ISP (8 /32s), and assign them the first of those /32s automatically. To get the others, the ISP just needs to ask for them. A /29 is over half a million /48s - far more than the "niche" ISPs like A&A or IDNET (and probably even Zen) will ever need.
But if they ever did run out, they can just request more - e.g. BT has a /22 assignment (2a00:2000::/22), which is over 67 million /48s.
Also, A&A give one /48 per "customer". Each customer can have many services (at different sites), and then via A&A's control panel allocate /60s or /56s from their overall /48 to that service.
So yes, a /48 is "wasteful", but the ipv6 address space is big. Vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big. It's designed to be wasteful.
But what annoys me most about IPv6 is that the mainstream ISPs are allocating dynamic IPv6 prefixes - a lot of the potential of devices having globally routable addresses is lost if those addresses are not permanent. It's a big opportunity thrown away.
-
@DaveC couldn't agree more about dynamic addresses. I was going to say that it is stupid, but in fa t it is probably just evil greed so that they can charge more for static address blocks at the cost of messing up things generally.
-
The constraint may be an underestimation of the amount of ISP's needing to fill those very generous /22 allocations.
http://eradman.com/library/is_the_ipv6_address_space_too_small_.pdf
This guy predicts in a decade or so we will be force to make ip version 6.1 with a smaller device identifier to allow for more prefixes to be generated.
@Weaver maybe with BT, as they do with static IPv4, but probably not with sky who dont offer static ipv6 at all regardless of what you pay and dont sell business broadband. Sky were asked about their dynamic prefixing and their engineer replied they did it to make managing their network easier without having to commit specific prefixes to specific parts of their network.
For the vast majority of home users, a static ip assignment is not really required for anything. The benefits of it are it makes tracking internet usage far easier, so e.g. law enforcement would love for everyone to have static ip's, with internet routable ip's been assigned to individual devices on ipv6, those benefits further increase because on ipv4, the isp can log which customer has which ip for a specific time, but they cannot log which device has which ipv6 without having their own ways of identifying those devices, however to further complicate matters we have privacy features which e.g. windows utilises by default that will rotate ipv6 on the device which negates the second advantage I mentioned.
Websites like kitz who may want to ban specific ip's this becomes far easier if home users have static ip addresses, web admin's dont need to worry if multiple people share an ip or if its dynamic and then the ban becomes a false positive.
The other advantages are more for home workers like myself or businesses so static ip's are great for ACL's, and we got the good old hosting content from home, I have never been a fan of people doing hosting from home, I dont see it as proper use of a consumer broadband connection, but regardless even tho today hosting is really cheap, people continue to persist with hosting from home, and as such its a driver for static ip's.
Generally I do agree with you that really isp's should be pushing for static deployments, but I dont think if its dynamic it just breaks things, it just negates certain advantages that were expected with ipv6 deployment. Sky think they have an acceptable middle ground with a week long DHCP expiry, so basically to lose your prefix your router has to be powered down for at least a week. However sometimes network resegmentations will lose your prefix regardless of router downtime, I lost my first sky prefix in Feb earlier this year. I can understand DHCP been used to simplify end user router configuration, but they probably should be using sticky DHCP allocations, if network work is carried out that risks prefixes been moved, there should also be a policy its only done if there is no solution to avoid it.
-
What if someone decides to DDoS the static IP user? I think it should be a choice, preferably from an online control panel. Limits are okay but not being permanently locked to one IP & having to call support for it to be changed.
I'm happiest with dynamic, my IP lease is over as soon as I disconnect from WAN. True, any good capability can be used to do bad things, at least I don't :-\
Because of IP logs, I'm not sure dynamic IP is harder to catch. Rather, it renders single IP bans useless, as you said, and requires an IP-block ban that blocks any user from that ISP.
-
I'm with you. Up until recently I had a static IP and although never DDoSed it irked my that I was basically leaving an indelible impression everywhere I visited. Much happier now being one in a crowd.
I know NAT is evil to some people but the idea of every device on a home network having a unique IP makes me nervous.
-
What if someone decides to DDoS the static IP user? I think it should be a choice, preferably from an online control panel. Limits are okay but not being permanently locked to one IP & having to call support for it to be changed.
I'm happiest with dynamic, my IP lease is over as soon as I disconnect from WAN. True, any good capability can be used to do bad things, at least I don't :-\
Because of IP logs, I'm not sure dynamic IP is harder to catch. Rather, it renders single IP bans useless, as you said, and requires an IP-block ban that blocks any user from that ISP.
Static ipv4 you may be screwed although on sky you can turn static on/off on a whim, I think you can on plusnet also, with ipv6 is the prefix that be static not the ip itself, you could simply get a new ip from your prefix to your device.
Of course I have to ask I am curious, why was you DDOS'd as a home user? You got into an argument with someone in a place where your ip is visible?
Whatsapp, twitch, forums, youtube chat etc. all hide end user ip's from non admin's. IRC networks using modern ircd server's also mask ip's now days.
Dynamic IPv4 is a "bit" harder to track the customer from authorities, as isp's have to check logs, but UK isps are required by law to keep this data available, so it only makes it a "bit" harder.
The IP footprint from a static ip, well if you browse this site kitz knows your ip, however if you browse say tbb, she doesnt know ip's from that site, so for someone to say track a user based on ip's across the world wide web would find it extremely difficult. Much easier is if someone uses the same user id everywhere then track the username instead. A large entity like google tho could track pages visited from say google search and across things like youtube. I would say the most dangerous thing for worry of been tracked from an IP is if you use a DNS server that logs query requests. Google DNS probably the best idea google ever came up with for tracking people.
Avoiding been tracked via a static ip isnt overly difficult, use a proxy, vpn, trusted DNS server, although these type of things can also be tracked also in different ways but at least its not using your home ip.
-
I've been DDoS'd once this year or last year, dunno how or why; and it came out of the blue, so not an argument. Surely some connection that revealed the IP, maybe a torrent one. Changing IP solved all the lag.
-
so ironically you probably wasnt even the target maybe older user of ip was or it was just lag and not ddos
-
I don't understand how we are supposed to configure certain firewalls ACLs and so on without static and therefore quotable IPs. If a firewall had ithat could return values by referring to their named sources and then apply operators to them then that would work, but I do not know if firewall designers are going to go to that much trouble.
I would just vote with my feet for sanity, who needs the inconvenience.
-
IP's get tracked so are dynamically calculated when rules created. Firewall designers have already gone to that trouble, consumer routers all already do this hence supporting dynamic ip's, and open source like PFSense are already capable as well, else I would have no firewall on my sky ipv6 prefix.
An ISP with say 10 million customers approaches a vendor, I want 10 million units, these are the requirements, the vendor is just going to nod, 10 million units = nice order.
In addition a lot of firewalls I have configured have rules with dynamic values, modern firewall's use aliases, tables etc. to support such practices.
-
Firewall designers have already gone to that trouble, consumer routers all already do this hence supporting dynamic ip's, and open source like PFSense are already capable as well, else I would have no firewall on my sky ipv6 prefix.
In addition a lot of firewalls I have configured have rules with dynamic values, modern firewall's use aliases, tables etc. to support such practices.
Good to know. Mea culpa.
-
I understand where you coming from, like you said typically you enter a fixed ip in an ACL. The sort of thing a home worker, a business would require, but the average home user watching netflix? probably not, so its different markets. Hopefully in future BT and sky will changed to long lasting prefixes and commit to keep assignments to segments of their network permanent.
-
You can now add me to the list. Native IPv6 with IDNet. It took a bit of time because they told me that they use DHCPv6, and I should enable that option in the router. However, to get it working I had to disable that option.