BTW, what do you use for DDNS so other nodes can find you?
Both SixXs and he.net provided excellent and stable services,
but I never got more than about half the IPv4 download speed on
my tunnels. The frustrating part is that I never could figure
out why. Also with the he.net tunnel I was geolocated in the
USA which caused other problems. Plus the MTU limits.
Of all the tunnel providers I've used, these two were the best and
most stable, but at the time I was using tunnels, there were no POPs
for these providers in Australia, meaning long and highly suboptimal routing. I think that's also your speed issue - the distance between
the POP and you.
The international lonks can't give you your full share of bandwidth.
Try doing a speedtest.net to the USA and see what happens. I haven't tried the USA, but EU from here often only gets a few Mb/s on my
100/40 connection, which can sustain 80 Mb/s when using a local test server.
So no, a tunnel with a static address is not better than dynamic
native. The pros of native exceed the cons of dynamic.
But native and static beats them all. ;)
On 02-22-19 15:53, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Ihave a script from another Dutch IPv6 guru that shoukd take care of it but I have not yet come around to adapting it to my needs. Not high on the list of priorities. The IPv6 prefix has only changed thee or four times since I have native IPv6. Up until now Ihave always updated manually.
I doubt that. he.net has a POP on AMS-IX. "Everyone" in The Netherlands is "close" to AMS-IX. ;-)
Down under is also slow from here.
But native and static beats them all. ;)
Of course. ;-)
On 02-22-19 15:53, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
only changed thee or four times since I have native IPv6. Up
until now Ihave always updated manually.
OK, certainly viable at that sort of frequency, though I never leave anything like that to manual if I can avoid it, because of me. :)
I doubt that. he.net has a POP on AMS-IX. "Everyone" in The
Netherlands is "close" to AMS-IX. ;-)
OK, time to make sure with some ping tests. :D
On 02-23-19 16:06, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
I have a similar attitude, but I balance the expected effort to get the automation process top run propely against the effort of doing it manually once or twice a year.
I doubt that. he.net has a POP on AMS-IX. "Everyone" in The
Netherlands is "close" to AMS-IX. ;-)
OK, time to make sure with some ping tests. :D
That of course has been done at the time.
I have a similar attitude, but I balance the expected effort to
get the automation process top run propely against the effort of
doing it manually once or twice a year.
When one has suspected ADHD and routine things can fall off the radar, automation and notification are a must! :)
I doubt that. he.net has a POP on AMS-IX. "Everyone" in The
Netherlands is "close" to AMS-IX. ;-)
OK, time to make sure with some ping tests. :D
That of course has been done at the time.
And the results of those?
On 02-24-19 11:35, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
When one has suspected ADHD and routine things can fall off the radar, automation and notification are a must! :)
Fortunately I do not have that problem.
Another thing that puts me off, is that it is difficult to test
something that happens only once or twice a year. For IPv4 I know how
to provoke an IP change (change the MAC of the WAN interface) for IPv6
I do not know how to provoke a change of prefix.
And the results of those?
Good enough with a large margin to rule that out as the cause of the problem.
Another thing that puts me off, is that it is difficult to test
something that happens only once or twice a year. For IPv4 I know how
to provoke an IP change (change the MAC of the WAN interface) for
IPv6 I do not know how to provoke a change of prefix.
Another thing that puts me off, is that it is difficult to test
something that happens only once or twice a year. For IPv4 I know
how to provoke an IP change (change the MAC of the WAN interface)
for IPv6 I do not know how to provoke a change of prefix.
That's interesting. If you fake the MAC address and the IPv4 address changes, how the hell the IPv6 prefix would not change...?
I can not change the MAC address for the IPv6 router...
That needs a bit of explaining. My ISP, Ziggo, only provides native
IPv6 to non bussines accounts with a very limited set of
modem/routers. These modem/routers do not allow changing the MAC
address.
I can have the modem set in bridge mode and use my own router. Then I
can change the WAN MAC address. But with the modem/router in bridge
mode, I only have IP4.
On 02-26-19 06:20, Andrew Leary wrote to Michiel van der Vlist <=-
Each ISP has their own issues... Here Comcast will not allow a
WOW!
Whatever happened to the originally free internet? :(
Yeah we all know by now. As usual, after the pioneers the
corporations took over.
I'm happy to say, that nothing of the above is known to happen here
in Sweden.
I can have the modem set in bridge mode and use my own router.
Then I can change the WAN MAC address. But with the modem/router
in bridge mode, I only have IP4.
Each ISP has their own issues... Here Comcast will not allow a residential account to get a static IP. You have to subscribe to a Business Class plan and use their router/modem combo to get static
IP(s).
Putting their router in quasi-bridge mode so that you can use
your own router (which is something many businesses would want to do)
is problematic; some models of their gateway/router devices are known
to be unstable or just not work properly at all in quasi-bridge mode.
That, coupled with the fact that their tech support folks are not
known for quick or efficient service, makes them barely tolerable as
an ISP. Unfortunately, their main competitor in this area has their
head firmly stuck in the sand as far as IPv6 goes. Last I checked,
they had not even gotten as far as applying for IPv6 address space.
I feel lucky in having a great ISP. I could use any compatible router
I wanted to for my physical connection, which is VDSL.
MvdV> There is an EU directive that forbids ISPs to force theirI feel lucky in having a great ISP. I could use any compatible
router I wanted to for my physical connection, which is VDSL.
I have about 15 ISP to chose from. At least three (that I know of) offers native IPv6.
But.... if you now can have native IPv6, why don't you? Why still use
a tunnel?
Because IPv6 is not my most important criteria when choosing ISP.
I'm quite satisfied with my tunnel for now.
On 03-03-19 11:50, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
There is an EU directive that forbids ISPs to force their equipment on
customers. Some countries such as Germany have already implemented it. Here in The Netherlands the big ISPs are still dragging their feet. Now the argument is where the ISP's network ends and the customers network starts. The cable boys are now trying to twist is so that the modem
part is "their" part of the network and the router is part of the customer's network. That way they can still demand that the customer
use their modem but can have its own router. The tweakers want their
own modem as well. The jury is still out on that issue...
There is an EU directive that forbids ISPs to force their equipmenton
While not relevant to me (long way from EU ;) ), this discussion is nteresting.
That does raise some good questions - where does the ISP's network end
and the customer's start?
On 03-04-19 09:41, Ward Dossche wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
You bow to the Queen, that's enough for me ... :-)
That does raise some good questions - where does the ISP's network end
and the customer's start?
Interesting subject as there's talk in the UN to include the free
access to telecommunication (as in "unobstructed by tribal warfare",
not intending to be "for free") into the universal declaration of human rights ...
Interesting subject as there's talk in the UN to include the free
access to telecommunication (as in "unobstructed by tribal
warfare", not intending to be "for free") into the universal
declaration of human rights ...
Now that's interesting. I wonder how the UN will word that.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 71:52:20 |
| Calls: | 6,657 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,203 |
| Messages: | 5,332,234 |
| Posted today: | 1 |