# Hmmm, why did my IPv6 stop working recently? Oh, because I was only asking for a /64 from their rout



## KuJoe (Oct 16, 2014)

So I got my new router a while back but wasn't able to get IPv6 working on it until today. My problem was I was asking for a /64 from them but recently they changed it so that they only offer /60 to residential clients now. I had to wait 4-5 days for my old lease to expire before I could get the /60 and now my IPv6 is working on my new router. 

So now I have 16 /64s to my house (that's 295147905179352825856 hosts), this should be fun.


----------



## TruvisT (Oct 16, 2014)

When is your toaster, oven, and bed getting their own IPs. ;p


----------



## KuJoe (Oct 16, 2014)

TruvisT said:


> When is your toaster, oven, and bed getting their own IPs. ;p


LoL, I know right!

I'm glad we're not burning through IPv6 like we did IPv4.


----------



## MannDude (Oct 16, 2014)

Pardon my ignorance on the matter, but why does the IPv6 speedtest give much better download results? It's almost 3X as fast.


----------



## KuJoe (Oct 16, 2014)

MannDude said:


> Pardon my ignorance on the matter, but why does the IPv6 speedtest give much better download results? It's almost 3X as fast.


I think it's because Comcast hands off to Level3 as soon as they can for IPv6. I notice that traceroutes over IPv6 usually have less hops (to the east coast it's sometimes 1/2 the hops of IPv4 to the same server).

[EDIT]

Traceroute to the same VPS in Tampa, FL from my home in Denver, CO:

IPv4:


3 9 ms 9 ms 11 ms xe-9-1-3-0-sur02.arvada.co.denver.comcast.net [162.151.38.209]
4 49 ms 17 ms 10 ms ae-21-0-ar01.aurora.co.denver.comcast.net [68.86.179.213]
5 13 ms 11 ms 11 ms te-0-1-0-4-cr01.chicago.il.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.95.201]
6 34 ms 35 ms 35 ms he-5-15-0-0-cr01.350ecermak.il.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.85.113]
7 49 ms 34 ms 33 ms he-0-2-0-0-cr01.350ecermak.il.ibone.comcast.net [68.86.88.138]
8 33 ms 33 ms 35 ms as3257-pe01.111eighthave.ny.ibone.comcast.net [75.149.229.114]
9 86 ms 87 ms 89 ms 207.88.14.193.ptr.us.xo.net [207.88.14.193]
10 88 ms 88 ms 87 ms vb24.rar3.washington-dc.us.xo.net [207.88.12.34]
11 89 ms 110 ms 87 ms te-3-0-0.rar3.atlanta-ga.us.xo.net [207.88.12.9]
12 95 ms 87 ms 87 ms te-4-0-0.rar3.miami-fl.us.xo.net [207.88.12.6]
13 88 ms 85 ms 85 ms ae0d0.mcr1.tampa-fl.us.xo.net [216.156.0.218]
14 86 ms 87 ms 86 ms 64.220.113.126.ptr.us.xo.net [64.220.113.126]
15 86 ms 87 ms 87 ms v998.core2.esnet.com [208.38.174.26]
16 94 ms 90 ms 92 ms 199.167.31.4

IPv6:


3 9 ms 10 ms 9 ms 2001:558:1c2:ec::1
4 84 ms 16 ms 12 ms ae-21-0-ar01.aurora.co.denver.comcast.net [2001:558:1c0:a3::1]
5 15 ms 15 ms 12 ms 2001:558:0:f5d6::1
6 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms ae14.edge3.Denver1.Level3.net [2001:1900:4:3::269]
7 24 ms 24 ms 24 ms vl-4040.edge2.Dallas1.Level3.net [2001:1900:4:1::3a]
8 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms vl-4044.edge2.Dallas1.Level3.net [2001:1900:4:1::32e]
9 52 ms 52 ms 52 ms vl-11.bar1.Tampa1.Level3.net [2001:1900:4:1::329]
10 56 ms 53 ms 53 ms WIDEOPENWES.bar1.Tampa1.Level3.net [2001:1900:2100::1f4a]
11 54 ms 53 ms 54 ms 2607:f3f0:0:2:2d0:ff:fe9e:2400
12 53 ms 53 ms 53 ms 2602:fff6:f:1::4:4
What's funny is that I'm only paying for 50Mbps and I always get more than that over IPv6 while I rarely hit that for IPv4.


----------



## zzrok (Oct 16, 2014)

Only a /60?  How quaint  .  My ISP gives out /56, but that is already passé.  I don't understand why, but everyone now thinks a /48 should be the smallest delegation.  My lame router only knows how to handle a /64, so I'm missing out on all those extra addresses for now anyways .  Not that I had any plans for them.


----------



## trewq (Oct 17, 2014)

zzrok said:


> Only a /60? How quaint  . My ISP gives out /56, but that is already passé. I don't understand why, but everyone now thinks a /48 should be the smallest delegation. My lame router only knows how to handle a /64, so I'm missing out on all those extra addresses for now anyways . Not that I had any plans for them.


We're a long way off proper IPv6 integration with our current infrastructure especially in regards to addressing standards.


I'm ISP gives me a static /56 too however I manually cycle the /64 range every month of so.


I can only dream of 50mbps... ADSL2+ is horrid.


----------



## MannDude (Oct 17, 2014)

Well hell. I can get direct fiber to my house, good speeds. Small company... wonder if I can get IPv6 with them. Guess it's worth sending an email about.

Interestingly, I never really thought or imagined that data over IPv6 would take different paths than IPv4. Is it a common thing from others with IPv6 at home (or elsewhere) that IPv6 is usually a shorter path between source and destination? Uncertain if that makes sense the way I am wording it, just looking at KuJoe's post from above and thinking.


----------



## trewq (Oct 17, 2014)

MannDude said:


> Is it a common thing from others with IPv6 at home (or elsewhere) that IPv6 is usually a shorter path between source and destination? Uncertain if that makes sense the way I am wording it, just looking at KuJoe's post from above and thinking.


With my ISP it's not. All the traffic flows to the same place as IPv4 inside their network as it's all IPv6 compatible. Once outside the network I notice lower latency though.


----------



## D. Strout (Oct 17, 2014)

MannDude said:


> Well hell. I can get direct fiber to my house, good speeds. Small company... wonder if I can get IPv6 with them. Guess it's worth sending an email about.
> 
> Interestingly, I never really thought or imagined that data over IPv6 would take different paths than IPv4. Is it a common thing from others with IPv6 at home (or elsewhere) that IPv6 is usually a shorter path between source and destination? Uncertain if that makes sense the way I am wording it, just looking at KuJoe's post from above and thinking.


My IPv6 is through a VPN, and the VPS the VPN is running on gets its IPv6 through HE. If you're going through HE, good routes/latency are pretty much guaranteed. It's literally their job.


----------



## nunim (Oct 17, 2014)

D. Strout said:


> My IPv6 is through a VPN, and the VPS the VPN is running on gets its IPv6 through HE. If you're going through HE, good routes/latency are pretty much guaranteed. It's literally their job.


Are you only tunneling IPv6 through the VPN?

I'd be interested in knowing how this is setup as I was attempting to make a private v6 tunnel.


----------



## Kris (Oct 18, 2014)

@KuJoe I got 60 down / 12 up in Denver, due to their competitive CenturyLink speeds. If you pay $10 extra per month, your v4 speeds should match your v6, I'm guessing you aren't on Blast, but getting Blast speeds over v6. 

Nice speed test tool BTW, never was able to test v4 / v6 before. 







Time Warner LA with their MAXX upgrade.

Waiting to get off their leased modem for the SB6183, which gives you the full 16 channels / 300 Mbps down.


----------



## KuJoe (Oct 18, 2014)

Kris said:


> @KuJoe I got 60 down / 12 up in Denver, due to their competitive CenturyLink speeds. If you pay $10 extra per month, your v4 speeds should match your v6, I'm guessing you aren't on Blast, but getting Blast speeds over v6.
> 
> Nice speed test tool BTW, never was able to test v4 / v6 before.
> 
> ...


I have their cheapest "Double Play" package but I wish I didn't sign a contract because we can't wait to get rid of our cable.

I've got a SB6141 and it works nicely compared to ever other cable modem I've ever had, I wish more ISPs would let you bring your own modem like Comcast does.


----------



## Kris (Oct 18, 2014)

KuJoe said:


> I have their cheapest "Double Play" package but I wish I didn't sign a contract because we can't wait to get rid of our cable.
> 
> I've got a SB6141 and it works nicely compared to ever other cable modem I've ever had, I wish more ISPs would let you bring your own modem like Comcast does.


Cable is 12 month plans, but you aren't in a contract. That's simply when they jack up the prices. 

The SB6141 is what I had in Denver, but as I guessed, I had the 'Blast' $10/extra per month to get 60 down / 10 up on v4. Seems like they have uncapped v6, per se with the new speed tier. 

Here you need a 16 channel router to pull anything over 110 Mbps, which is why I'm waiting for the SB6183 to become more readily available retail.

It's 1-3 months on Amazon. Only reason why I'm on a TWC leased modem is there aren't any 16 channel downstream modems that will pull these speeds. 

A SB6141 only gets around 110Mbps down here due to all channels not being provisioned. Seems cable is finally waking up in certain regions to match their competitors' offerings.


----------

