Kitz Forum
Internet => General Internet => Topic started by: Weaver on July 10, 2022, 05:33:08 PM
-
Looking at the traffic figures for LINX, in the ‘FLOW’ page, row LON1, average traffic, I see: IPv4: 3.694 Tbps, IPv6: 0.124759 Tbps. I’m really quite surprised by that ratio, what ~25x greater IPv4. I would have thought that the modern web browsers’ happy-eyeballs algorithm would cause users to favour IPv6 and I don’t see any particular reason why IPv6 would lose the happy-eyeballs race.
Maybe it means there are a lot of IPv4-only large ISPs still. Isn’t BT Retail IPv6-capable now? (Apart from PlusNet.) Or maybe a lot of that figure is not from web-browsing by ordinary users. Or maybe a lot of IP streaming TV is still over IPv4. I also wonder how much of that traffic is not from domestic users?
-
Because many websites and services are still single stacked, kitz included.
Then all the isp's that are single stacked as well. :(
BT and sky are both double stacked but VM a massive isp is still single stacked.
-
Perhaps some tools that could help web servers go to IPv4/IPv6 support would be helpful to webmasters? I’m thinking of the sudden rise in adoption of SSL / TLS and signing for websites a few years back.
-
Perhaps some tools that could help web servers go to IPv4/IPv6 support would be helpful to webmasters? I’m thinking of the sudden rise in adoption of SSL / TLS and signing for websites a few years back.
If you on something like cpanel or directadmin its really nothing more than a couple of clicks. Sadly though if it doesnt boost search rankings then most webmasters arent interested, I noticed when google started making https affect SEO then suddenly sites all jumped on it.
-
I suspect this will go on forever, as CGNAT just allows ISPs to not care.
It doesn't help that there are still so many single-stack devices. My VoIP box the N300 IP seems to be single stack which is insane when SIP especially benefits from not being behind NAT.
-
It needs someone like google to make their services single stack IPv6, if that happened, I would expect to be almost a guarantee that within a very short time ISPs like VM have IPv6 rolled out to prevent a mass exodus of customers.
Then google could add SEO points for IPv6 which would make webmasters comply.
-
Which of course wont happen as it would be suicide for Google.
-
Which of course wont happen as it would be suicide for Google.
I dont think it would be suicide, they are so big and important to people, people would switch ISP so they can continue using google services, but of course they would take a hit to their income which is probably why they wont pull the trigger, there has been talks of it in the past but it never happened.
-
I hear what Alex says, but I’m unsure. The evidence of the shift to widespread https in web servers mentioned earlier shows that large influential organisations such as Google can in some cases push for change by changing what ISPs and server operators care about. Perhaps in the case of IPv6, it could be another ‘World IPv6 day’ some years ahead, where several years ahead, it is announced that SEO rankings will be such that IPv6 servers will be (slightly) favoured. Such a ranking change could only be minor, but people might be led to believe IPv6 to be more important a ranking factor than was truly the case. We need more IPv6-only webservers, for campaigning reasons. Being brutal with a long pre-announcement phase, that would be the strategy. It could only apply to certain business users and very techie target audiences. I can only think of one just now, off the top of my head: https://loopsofzen.uk/ - hope that’s the correct URL.
I need to find the talk given by Microsoft’s head of their internal corporate network at a conference some years back. Something like https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjHmI-KuPH4AhWbM8AKHeDDBasQtwJ6BAgGEAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DiFvaqpW4vLA&usg=AOvVaw2CFg2YoU0ip6sopdItSkO2 - that’s youtube and I need to somehow de-google-garble that URL.
Microsoft corporate IT is an example of how a corporation really really cares about IPv6 a very great deal, surprisingly, and by that I mean going IPv6-only - ie getting rid of IPv4 in all the machines on their internal LANs. This includes the guest WLAN they offer to visitors to their offices. One of the reasons is that the cost of IPv4 addresses per address is going up and MS has already spent several $m on buying big blocks, which are going to be impossible to get at any price.
-
I need to find the talk given by Microsoft’s head of their internal corporate network at a conference some years back. Something like https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjHmI-KuPH4AhWbM8AKHeDDBasQtwJ6BAgGEAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DiFvaqpW4vLA&usg=AOvVaw2CFg2YoU0ip6sopdItSkO2 - that’s youtube and I need to somehow de-google-garble that URL.
The above URL is https://youtu.be/iFvaqpW4vLA
Personally, I think that most people don't care about whether they are using IPv4 or IPv6 - only a few technically inclined users.
-
The above URL is https://youtu.be/iFvaqpW4vLA
Personally, I think that most people don't care about whether they are using IPv4 or IPv6 - only a few technically inclined users.
Probably true but thats because the big UK ISPs have scooped up IPv4 space so they have lots of it, but when thinking about the wider picture there is some ISPs forced to use CGNAT because they of course entered the game late and dont have enough and datacentres with critical shortage of IPv4 as well. Most of the public is generally ignorant to these problems.
-
I know at least some VPS providers offer free IPv6 only and you pay extra for IPv4. I suppose there is a possibility once this cost reaches breaking point that people might consider not paying it.
Although it appears you CAN host an IPv6 only site if you put it behind something like Cloudflares proxy service. It will access the site over IPv6 then proxy both IPv4 and IPv6.
-
@gt94sss2 Indeed, agreed. I’d go further and say that many people have no clue which protocol they’re using and very many don’t even know that there are two internets.
But I think that various actors could cause a push for change. Perhaps a marketing campaign for ‘real ale’ ISPs to get a gold star which users are manipulated into looking out for. Apologies for mixed metaphors back there. There is a cost to software developers (like me) in developing, maintaining and testing code for two internets, and app firmware developers who want to switch to IPv6-only will be interested in putting there support behind some a ‘manipulation’ or marketing campaign very vaguely like the World IPv6 days (back in the two years around -what was it 2011 and 2012 ?), and the switchover to ubiquitous https that we mentioned.
It was clear even back thirty years ago that IPv4 had been a big failure, because I suspect that no one originally could imagine a world where one or multiple users per domestic household might have one or more computers, needing many billions of IP addresses. Even if in the 1970s and early 80s one knew about Moore’s Law, then developments such as the www, and miniature mobile computers with RF networking in them, such new applications / raisons d’ être for the internet were not obvious, not immediately predictable. So these drivers, answers to the question ‘why would you want that in your home, or even pocket?’ were altogether new and powerful and broke the internet out of its early role of connecting large machines only at universities and a couple of computing or comms-related corporates, a role which would only need a few tens of thousand IP addresses. Some sites were later even outside the USA! So the size of the 32-bit IP address was, as we know, so very wrong and this got acknowledged way too late, since the 1990s user explosion had already taken place and IPv6 was not even remotely ready, or not even born in time to get installed in that new massive user base.
With the interplanetary/ bundle network protocol, the designers were determined not to repeat their mistake of the late 70s and used variable-length addresses that are pretty much like email addresses, not n-bit numbers, where n is even greater than 128 perhaps. To address all the users on all the planets in the galaxy requires who knows how many bundle protocol addresses; astronomers could perhaps make a decent overestimate. But what happens if suddenly one day the requirements change to require extending the range to multiple galaxies, and a lot of them too?
-
. . . many don’t even know that there are two internets.
<Nit picking mode on>
s/two internets/two internet protocols/
<Nit picking mode off>
-
<Nit picking mode on>
s/two internets/two internet protocols/
<Nit picking mode off>
Indeed. I mean most people think "the Internet" is the content they can see, they have no clue or care for what is going on behind the scenes.
-
@Burakkucat - I quite understand your viewpoint. I didn’t mistype though; that was my intention. I think of there being two networks, with different topologies: the IPv4 internet and the IPv6 internet. And of course there also happen to be two different protocols running too. Does that seem a fair alternative way of looking at it?
-
Why, yes. Indeed. :)
But as Alex has mentioned, the average "bookface" user thinks that Tim Berners-Lee invented "the Internet". :-X ::)
-
Looking at the traffic figures for LINX, in the ‘FLOW’ page, row LON1, average traffic, I see: IPv4: 3.694 Tbps, IPv6: 0.124759 Tbps. I’m really quite surprised by that ratio, what ~25x greater IPv4. I would have thought that the modern web browsers’ happy-eyeballs algorithm would cause users to favour IPv6 and I don’t see any particular reason why IPv6 would lose the happy-eyeballs race.
Most of the IPv6 is from the 'big boys' - Alphabet, Netflix, Meta, Microsoft, Apple, Cloudflare, Akamai, etc. Most ISPs will not consume their content via the LINX public LANs but through a combination of direct NNIs and on-net CDN caches which don't show on the LINX public stats.
-
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
https://www.akamai.com/internet-station/cyber-attacks/state-of-the-internet-report/ipv6-adoption-visualization
-
With the uptake of IPv6 space, I'm wondering how long it'll be before the pricing of IPv4 space starts to... well, crash I guess.
A short time ago I had considered the possibility of buying a /24 instead of having one on a lease. I could've also considered it an investment but I'm fearful that the pricing of IPv4 space may almost be at its peak and within the next few years it may start to tumble. As I understand it, China wants to eliminate IPv4 from their country by 2025.
-
I just don't see it happening in my lifetime, or should that be "over my cold, dead, body!".
I found out a few days ago my NAS suddenly has lost IPv6 connectivity and I don't know why. IPv4 "just works".
There doesn't even seem to be much of a push by some providers. I applied for a VPS with IONOS a week back and it gave me IPv4 by default, I had to manually request IPv6, which seems backwards to what I'd expect them to be doing.
-
China can want to eliminate IPv4 all they want: just means having to add tons of 6:4 gateways on their network boundaries. Rest of the world will have copious amounts of v4 still in use for the foreseeable.
Some of the enormous amount of v4 pointlessly tied up in reserved ranges would be good. As would the US military giving up some of their /8s though that's unlikely.
-
Some of the enormous amount of v4 pointlessly tied up in reserved ranges would be good.
I assume you don't mean private space, as my current configuration actually relies on it being so diverse. For example running more than one VPN instance with a low chance of both using the same IP range. CG-NAT being different to private space is also essential to avoid clashing with random LANs, the fact some ISPs use private space instead of the proper CG-NAT range is pretty bad.
Microsoft had to migrate to IPv6 before everyone else as they literally ran out of IPv4 private addresses, though I guess there's not many corporations large enough enough to run into that problem.
-
I just don't see it happening in my lifetime, or should that be "over my cold, dead, body!".
I found out a few days ago my NAS suddenly has lost IPv6 connectivity and I don't know why. IPv4 "just works".
There doesn't even seem to be much of a push by some providers. I applied for a VPS with IONOS a week back and it gave me IPv4 by default, I had to manually request IPv6, which seems backwards to what I'd expect them to be doing.
Yeah, I'm thinking that too. I've heard countless times about how IPv6 was supposed to takeover from IPv4 but I've yet to see it happen. IPv4 addresses are often also much easier to remember compared to public IPv6 addresses. For many IPv4 as you say "just works". Entities are still purchasing IPv4 space even at the prices they are currently at.
I'm uncertain if it's true as I haven't really tried to setup IPv6 on my Lightning Fibre connection, but a business using the same ISP told me that currently IPv6 isn't working for them. That doesn't bother me however as I already have a /48 announced (BGP) which I can keep even if I move to another ISP in the future for some reason, so I just use that :D.
-
I assume you don't mean private space, as my current configuration actually relies on it being so diverse. For example running more than one VPN instance with a low chance of both using the same IP range.
Microsoft had to migrate to IPv6 before everyone else as they literally ran out of IPv4 private addresses, though I guess there's not many corporations large enough enough to run into that problem.
I wasn't, no, I used the word 'reserved' carefully, though. There are a large number of v4 addresses reserved and doing nothing.
On the wider point if your home and private servers require 10/8, 172.16/12 and 192.168/16 in their entirety and diversity you may be using excessively large subnets. Unless you're running a business involving VPNs or giving access to your data to the public in some capacity you can happily use /28s or /29s to reach home, smaller the subnet lower the chance of overlap.
CG-NAT doesn't overlap with the RFC1918 address space it has its own, 100.64/10, and only needs to be unique per gateway.
Address overlap on larger networks is fine. This is why we have VRFs. There's a ton of overlap on cloud services but the routing tables aren't exposed to each other. There's a ton of address overlap on ISPs serving enterprises but it's for the most part fine as they're in different tables. On VPNs home routers almost always kindly sit in the 192.168/16 range so are easy enough to avoid. :)
-
With the uptake of IPv6 space, I'm wondering how long it'll be before the pricing of IPv4 space starts to... well, crash I guess.
A short time ago I had considered the possibility of buying a /24 instead of having one on a lease. I could've also considered it an investment but I'm fearful that the pricing of IPv4 space may almost be at its peak and within the next few years it may start to tumble. As I understand it, China wants to eliminate IPv4 from their country by 2025.
Good on China for that, but as long as we have services single stacked IPv4 and broadband users single stacked IPv4, then it will be premium priced. Given the lack of motivation from regulators to force progress, we are likely going to be stagnated for a long time in this kind of part way through migration phase.
-
Good on China for that, but as long as we have services single stacked IPv4 and broadband users single stacked IPv4, then it will be premium priced. Given the lack of motivation from regulators to force progress, we are likely going to be stagnated for a long time in this kind of part way through migration phase.
Yeah that makes sense, I agree. I might think through my options again a little later then.
-
One thing that annoys me is the failure of
some most of the website status checkers.
Testing using https://loopsofzen.uk/ ...
Don't work
https://www.isitdownrightnow.com/
https://sitechecker.pro/website-down/
https://www.isitwp.com/uptime-checker/
https://www.site24x7.com/check-website-availability.html
https://www.websiteplanet.com/webtools/down-or-not/
https://www.uptrends.com/tools/uptime
https://www.freshworks.com/website-monitoring/is-it-down/
https://downinspector.com/
https://isitdown.co.uk/
Do work
https://downforeveryoneorjustme.com
https://currentlydown.com/
https://pagespeed.web.dev/
-
Good on China for that, but as long as we have services single stacked IPv4 and broadband users single stacked IPv4, then it will be premium priced. Given the lack of motivation from regulators to force progress, we are likely going to be stagnated for a long time in this kind of part way through migration phase.
The lack of regulatory pressure is because this is has many international depencies. China won't be rid of v4 they'll just have a ton of 6:4 gateways on the Golden Shield's edge. They can claim their internal Internet is v6 only which just highlights that they've an internal Internet along national lines.
In the UK we don't yet have an equivalent and our Internet doesn't conform to national boundaries so I genuinely can't see what regulators can do beyond mandating dual-stack, which China aren't.
-
The lack of regulatory pressure is because this is has many international depencies. China won't be rid of v4 they'll just have a ton of 6:4 gateways on the Golden Shield's edge. They can claim their internal Internet is v6 only which just highlights that they've an internal Internet along national lines.
In the UK we don't yet have an equivalent and our Internet doesn't conform to national boundaries so I genuinely can't see what regulators can do beyond mandating dual-stack, which China aren't.
Well of course yes for international traffic IPv4 connectivity would still be required, but this would still be a step forward. Dual stack would be fine for that case. Eventually then would hope other countries follow suit, and would be slow steady progress instead of stagnation. I think that's the issue for me, that instead of a unified direction, we just have every entity doing what's best for themselves.
-
I don’t get the argument made by our dear dinosaur friends (:)) that IPv6 addresses are difficult to remember. Well, random ones certainly are, but no one ever tries to remember them, so it’s not important. For example, 2001:8b0::2020 isn’t hard to remember. That’s one of AA’s DNS servers. My Firebrick’s LAN-facing interface is at 2001:8b0:xyz::1 - see, no problem. And in any case, I have DNS names for absolutely everything wherever I can, but iOS for example has privacy concerns that have driven them to use random addresses on my LAN, and I can’t arrange for DNS to follow suit. One of the other LAN-local L2 name resolution protocols (I forget what Apple has used) would be some comfort but then the result isn’t globally visible. :( So I am embarrassed to have to say that I can currently only set up domain names for say my iPads’ IPv4 addresses. Oh dear! ;)
What do other people do about IPv6 name resolution for non-server machines in practice?
-
Private IPv6 addresses are easy to remember, public ones however aren't so easy.
My allocation for example is 2a0e:fd45:xxxx::/48 (where xxxx is just the masked out bit of nonsensical letters and numbers). IPv4 addresses are up to 12 numerical characters, excluding the dots, whereas the mentioned allocation is at least 12 hexadecimal characters (excluding the colons). I think it's already obvious why public IPv6 addresses might be harder to remember unless you're lucky enough to get something like 2a0e:fdfd:4345 or something easier to remember compared to a somewhat patternless allocation.
If I was to become an LIR member with RIPE however then I could request a /32, justification not required, and have more choice from the third segment :D (which I believe is considered an ISP level allocation, especially given how much a /32 can be split).
-
You have to remember Weaver, you're from a development background, you've trained your brain around remembering freaky hexadecimal values. :p
My memory has always been a weakness, I was in my 20s when I setup my first LAN so remembering 192.168.1 is second nature. I rarely remember what my other clients are set as other than my gaming PC is 1 and my normal desktop is 2, server is 253 and router is 254.
There's also the complexity of which privacy scheme are you using on IPv6 and if you aren't, then your range depends on your ISP.
But most importantly, there's the fact IPv6 routing has inexplicably broken on my LAN right now and I have no clue why. Spent a few hours yesterday trying to figure it out, I can ping from the server to the router, can ping the other way, but nothing will load. A traceroute outright fails, pfSense is not sending the traffic onwards, something is borked.
-
One of the other LAN-local L2 name resolution protocols (I forget what Apple has used)
mDNS/Bonjour?
-
What do other people do about IPv6 name resolution for non-server machines in practice?
Boring as it is I do nothing for them. If they aren't going to take inbound connections no point in name resolution. I don't actually track what servers use for IPv6 either as I use v4 for them for right now internally. Servers and other infrastructure do get nailed down addressing during setup. Servers have fixed MAC addresses so plenty of ways to handle it when the time comes. Clients using dynamic/randomised MAC addresses aren't going to be taking inbound connections so no need to worry about addressing them directly.
-
Boring as it is I do nothing for them. If they aren't going to take inbound connections no point in name resolution. I don't actually track what servers use for IPv6 either as I use v4 for them for right now internally. Servers and other infrastructure do get nailed down addressing during setup. Servers have fixed MAC addresses so plenty of ways to handle it when the time comes. Clients using dynamic/randomised MAC addresses aren't going to be taking inbound connections so no need to worry about addressing them directly.
Like I've said before, the exception to this rule seems to be Xbox which randomise their ID every reboot, highly frustrating.
For some bizarre reason they also expose manually entering an IPv4 address, but not IPv6. In fact while trying to get IPv6 working again the Xbox was the worst client, it doesn't even show its getting an IP address though I know DHCPv6 IS working, its just actual traffic that isn't passing.
-
Only have gaming PCs and PS5 so abstaining further from this.
-
So I removed and put back the IPv6 addess on the main LAN of pfSense and somehow its magically working again, even though that subnet is not actually used.
Weirder is clients on the V6 VLAN cannot ping the IP address of pfSense for that VLAN but can ping the main LAN IPv6 address. I don't even have any rules on the main LAN allowing ICMP over V6 but do on the VLAN.
Oh well, its routing again at least.
-
How do you enforce your VLAN tag? is it client side or switch side?
-
How do you enforce your VLAN tag? is it client side or switch side?
The Xbox is on that VLAN untagged via the switch config, my server and desktop (both Linux) has it tagged. This way I just turn it on and off in the network manager when testing things.
The rest of the network isn't on that VLAN at all, except the WiFi which has a separate SSID for the dual-stack network, again in case I want to test it on different clients.
Frustrating the Xbox now says IPv6 is working but moans uPNP is not available and the NAT is strict - so what the heck is the point of IPv6 there if its using IPv4 for gaming traffic? I thought the whole point was Microsoft was using Teredo for Xbox Live so it would work seamlessly when moving to IPv6.
-
I wonder what the Xbox would do if there was no IPv4 support on the network? :D
-
I tried that before, it said no Internet connection.
So much for Microsoft being IPv6 pioneers.
-
That Microsoft lecture at UKNOF that I linked to some while back showed just how much kit does IPv6 and yet still has some stupid dependency on something IPv4, and the devs never spotted this (er because they don’t do code reviews!!!) because they didn’t test in an IPv6-only environment. (I have an IPv6-only Raspberry Pi hosted by Mythic Beasts. Specifically meant for shaking such bugs out.)
@craigski - thank you mDNS it is; I see Microsoft is using it now too, instead of LLMNR. Yay, sanity! :)
@XGS_Is_on I too do nothing, but it’s because of the annoying random privacy addresses that Apple always use that I would like to use either link-local name resolution over mDNS, or better something like that linked to real DNS so it’s globally visible. I would really like to be able to just IPv6-ping some named box on my LAN to see if it’s alive, and currently I can do that with IPv4, and even do so from outside the LAN as I have a firewall hole (by src IPv4 addr) for my own iPad, so if I’m in hospital I can still reach in and see what’s up with the various boxes in the network.
I wonder if I can sweet-talk RevK into implementing mDNS support and mDNS-to-DNS conversion? This so that single-label domain names could be published in the DNS and resolved on the LAN by mDNS, and also FQDNs such as "<mdns-host>.lan.weaver.com" could be published likewise based on the defined DNS suffix "lan.weaver.com".
My point about the ease of memorising addresses is that IPv6 addresses that you do remember very often are not any longer than IPv4 ones. I have 10 hex characters in my /48 prefix.
The process of giving out /32s to ISPs and similar users somehow irrationally worries me, even though I know that we’re never going to have more than 232 ISPs, we’re back to allocating out of 232 again. Mind you, you could make some smaller ISPs keep all their customers in a /40 say and each end-user only gets a single /64, no more. I can’t understand the logic of giving out /48s to true ‘home’ users; /56 will be more than enough and a /60 should be fine for real ‘home’ users, with SOHO users perhaps being treated more generously, but even then, I’m not convinced.
-
My point about the ease of memorising addresses is that IPv6 addresses that you do remember very often are not any longer than IPv4 ones. I have 10 hex characters in my /48 prefix.
Fair enough, I suppose once you've memorised the address then its fine, as I just tack on the same digit at the end as IPv4. That also ties in nicely to your next point.
I can’t understand the logic of giving out /48s to true ‘home’ users; /56 will be more than enough and a /60 should be fine for real ‘home’ users, with SOHO users perhaps being treated more generously, but even then, I’m not convinced.
The logic I presume is, treat home users and businesses the same, its easier to manage. With such a vast number of addresses, if there is zero risk of running out, why not?
-
The process of giving out /32s to ISPs and similar users somehow irrationally worries me, even though I know that we’re never going to have more than 232 ISPs, we’re back to allocating out of 232 again. Mind you, you could make some smaller ISPs keep all their customers in a /40 say and each end-user only gets a single /64, no more. I can’t understand the logic of giving out /48s to true ‘home’ users; /56 will be more than enough and a /60 should be fine for real ‘home’ users, with SOHO users perhaps being treated more generously, but even then, I’m not convinced.
Fun fact... at least with RIPE I've discovered that an LIR can actually request up to a /29 IPv6 without justification (not just a /32 like I thought). Just request it and they will allocate it apparently. Even if an LIR only requests a /32, which is also the minimum that RIPE will allocate an LIR, a /29 is apparently reserved for the LIR anyway. Presumably subsequent requests for a /32 would then be contiguous for example. It's even more than I thought an LIR could request without justification, from RIPE at least. Hopefully that won't make you worry more :D ;).
The minimum allocation size is a /32. However, you can request up to a /29 without providing any additional justification.
The only two requirements are that you be an LIR member of RIPE and you plan to make sub-allocations within two years (in other words, pretty much begin using it for something).
-
The Xbox is on that VLAN untagged via the switch config, my server and desktop (both Linux) has it tagged. This way I just turn it on and off in the network manager when testing things.
The rest of the network isn't on that VLAN at all, except the WiFi which has a separate SSID for the dual-stack network, again in case I want to test it on different clients.
Frustrating the Xbox now says IPv6 is working but moans uPNP is not available and the NAT is strict - so what the heck is the point of IPv6 there if its using IPv4 for gaming traffic? I thought the whole point was Microsoft was using Teredo for Xbox Live so it would work seamlessly when moving to IPv6.
I can tell you my experience.
I initially had it on ipv4 single stack as I didnt have ipv6 enabled on my guest VLAN, but the teredo just wouldnt work and hence had no multiplayer.
I then added a ipv6 subnet to the vlan and, it all came to life, multiplayer working fine. NAT reported as moderate, not sure why there is a NAT test on native ipv6.
I dont have issues with clients on guest VLAN been able to ping gateways on other VLANs for both stacks.
Firewall rules in pfsense doesnt allow guest vlan traffic to hit main vlan.
I assume your DHCP servers are isolated on appropriate VLANs and each VLAN has its own gateway ip?
--
Testing ipv6 only connectivity now, console as usual forcing OS and controller firmware updates, waiting for these to complete.
--
Same result as you, no single stack ipv6 support, thats really lame, looking at the view IP screen, the issue I think is DNS, it doesnt use any ipv6 DNS servers only v4.
-
I initially had it on ipv4 single stack as I didnt have ipv6 enabled on my guest VLAN, but the teredo just wouldnt work and hence had no multiplayer.
I then added a ipv6 subnet to the vlan and, it all came to life, multiplayer working fine.
Why would that break multiplayer?
-
Why would that break multiplayer?
In theory, they were supposed to be adopting an IPv6 only network, so that peer to peer gaming wasn't hampered by NAT.
In practice its all a bit odd, as it still claims multiplayer is hobbled if you have strict NAT on IPv4, even with IPv6 available.
It may just be their UI being overly cautious, as Xbox 360 games likely still use IPv4 only, whereas Xbox One/Series you'd think would be IPv6, as its with the Xbox One launch where they made the switch. But honestly, its clear as mud.
If they were more clear about what was going on, I'd know if its even worth continuing down this path or just stick with IPv4, where I can monitor bandwidth of each client, I'd have to completely re-write the monitoring for IPv6 (as are Netgate themselves, its still in beta).
-
Why would that break multiplayer?
Uses v6 for multiplayer on xbox I think, hence why teredo gets used on ipv4 single stack.