http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2010/prod_033110.html
Does anybody know what are the plans for IPv6 support ?
Regards
Jorge
http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2010/prod_033110.html
Does anybody know what are the plans for IPv6 support ?
the current wrt610n supports ipv6 I failed to see why a slightly
updated and rebranded one would not as well.
I reached out to the inside sales of Linksys just as recently as last week,
and they wrote me back:
We did a little further research to see how we were currently
roadmapping RFC3633 and it looks like we have no current router
models that will be coming out over the next couple quarters
that support it on the consumer side of the house.
and later:
We will keep tabs with the BU on support and will let you
know if we hear anything coming up on the roadmap.
Frank
because for low-end CPE devices like this, a tiny change in the model
number (e.g. v1->v2) might mean a completely different internal system,
with different host CPU, different ethernet controller, etc. You're not in
any way guaranteed the same sort of software compatibility when moving from
one device version to another, particularly for less well supported
features like ipv6.
Nick
I checked the documentation for two models (Linux model and highest-end non-Linux model), and there's no mention of IPv6.
Frank
I checked the documentation for two models (Linux model and highest-end non-Linux model), and there's no mention of IPv6.
If this is a strictly "hardware" discussion, v6 "works" on a variety of
models, albeit not with stock firmware.
To wit : http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/IPv6
This suggests that Cisco (et.al.) can release an "official" firmware
image to support v6 on existing devices whenever they're sufficiently
motivated to do so. I'd wager the only reason it hasn't been made GA is
to limit the number of "pass-the-buck" support calls that start at $isp
and get bounced back saying "we don't support that yet, call whoever
makes your router".
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Michael Holstein
Cleveland State University
It's not in the wrt610n docs either yet the code was unambiguously in
the box, complete with 6to4 that your couldn't shut off.
I confirmed with Linksys' PR person that there is no IPv6 -- if someone sees different, please let us know.
Frank
FWIW, I see no IPv6 options on my WRT610N HW Version 2. I thought maybe
there was a new firmware version which added IPv6 capability, but I'm
still running the latest. There's no IPv6 options on any menu,
including 6to4 options that I can see. May be available under DD-WRT or
something similar, although last time I looked this model only had alpha
stage support for DD-WRT.
- Jim
It's not in the wrt610n docs either yet the code was unambiguously in
the box, complete with 6to4 that your couldn't shut off.
I have heard that if you visit the hidden "/system.asp" web page on those
devices and unclick the "Vista Premium" button, that this shuts down 6to4.
Don't have one of the boxes myself, so I can't test it.
I don't know whether to congratulate or feel sorry for Remco van Mook for
discovering this.
If this is a strictly "hardware" discussion, v6 "works" on a variety of
models, albeit not with stock firmware.
...
This suggests that Cisco (et.al.) can release an "official" firmware
image to support v6 on existing devices whenever they're sufficiently
motivated to do so.
Yes and no. Many of the uber-cheap models simply don't have the processing power or memory to do IPv6 well. (Some would say they don't do IPv4 well. I'm one of them.) Pure here's-a-packet-here's-where-it-goes switching can be done in almost any model as long as the v6 stack doesn't make the image too large to fit in the 4K rom. Doing anything remotely complicated, like tunneling and stateful firewalling, makes the image much too large and eats way too much ram. (This is also way many of the cheap models do not run linux and generally cannot run a usable linux image.) On the more expensive, higher end models, yes, they can run rather complex IPv4/6 stacks quite well. However, the bottom is that there is simply little to no consumer demand for IPv6 support -- esp. in North America (read: US) where most of these things are sold.
--Ricky
Linksys Live Chat claims neither the new Valet, nor the new E-Series
supports IPv6.
I do not have high confidence in the accuracy of the answer.
Owen
Yes and no. Many of the uber-cheap models simply don't have the
processing power or memory to do IPv6 well. (Some would say they don't
do IPv4 well. I'm one of them.) Pure
here's-a-packet-here's-where-it-goes switching can be done in almost any
model as long as the v6 stack doesn't make the image too large to fit in
the 4K rom. Doing anything remotely complicated, like tunneling and
stateful firewalling, makes the image much too large and eats way too
much ram. (This is also way many of the cheap models do not run linux
and generally cannot run a usable linux image.) On the more expensive,
higher end models, yes, they can run rather complex IPv4/6 stacks quite
well.
I *seriously* doubt that in this day and age. The basic problem is with
Linksys' business model which is to farm out the engineering to whomever
can produce it cheapest. They provide the spec and if it ain't in the
specs, it ain't in the product. You can expect *no* continuity between
one product and the next; there ain't an IOS or even codebase.
> However, the bottom is that there is simply little to no consumer
> demand for IPv6 support -- esp. in North America (read: US) where most
> of these things are sold.
Yes, of course, except for that making a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Mike, who's been bitten one too many times
Not necessarily. dd-wrt lacks the memory expense of the silly web
interface that Linksys is oh so fond of implementing in their consumer
grade boxen. I suspect that adding features to the Linksys code may
be a bit tighter on image and data space than dd-wrt's "stripped down"
efficiency.
Owen
Yes and no. Many of the uber-cheap models simply don't have the processing
power or memory to do IPv6 well. (Some would say they don't do IPv4 well.
I'm one of them.) Pure here's-a-packet-here's-where-it-goes switching can
be done in almost any model as long as the v6 stack doesn't make the image
too large to fit in the 4K rom.
Flashback to 1989...
In 2003, Dallas Semiconductor tried to implement IPv6 on an 8051
microcontroller.
They started with an IPv4 stack and modified as needed but soon discovered that
it was easiest to just implement a dual stack that handled all the addresses
internally as 128 bit quantities regardless of whether or not they
were v6 or v4.
It worked and they did it in 64k of ROM. This was written up at the time, and
no doubt influenced many other implementors of v6 in non-UNIX embedded
systems. By the way, the 8051 was introduced by Intel back in 1980. It was
loosely related on the 8080 which powered many CP/M based computers
in the 80's that typically had 64K of RAM
On the more expensive,
higher end models, yes, they can run rather complex IPv4/6 stacks quite
well.
These so-called expensive models are the majority of the cable modem and
DSL market in the USA, often running Linux which has supported IPv6
for a decade.
However, the bottom is that there is simply little to no consumer
demand for IPv6 support -- esp. in North America (read: US) where most of
these things are sold.
In fact, consumer demand for IPv6 is close to 100%.
Consumers just want their Internet access to work trouble free and are not
interested in hearing excuses like "ARIN ran out of IP addresses" or, "We
can't add any more connections to our network because it is full". IPv6 lets
you keep on offering full Internet access and keep on growing the network
so that when a customer moves across town, you can connect them up
in their new home.
--Michael Dillon
Michael, I think you fat-fingered "0%".
Just to be clear, I'm talking about the real world here.
Nick
I did not fat finger anything. In the real world, nearly 100% of consumers
demand IPv6 from their ISP. But consumers are not techies so they don't
talk that way with acronyms and technical gobbledygook version numbers.
In plain English they tell us that they want the Internet access service to
just plain work. They want it to work all the time, including tomorrow and
if they move across town, or to another city, they want to order a move
from the ISP, and have it done in a few days.
ISPs who don't have IPv6 will soon be unable to provide access to all
Internet sites, as content providers begin to bring IPv6 sites onstream.
And ISPs without IPv6 will not be able to continue growing their networks,
even for something as trivial as an existing customer who moves to a
different PoP.
The approaching time is going to be a crisis for the ISP industry, and
the press will tar some ISPs in a very bad light if they can't smoothly
introduce IPv6. There will be bargain basement sellouts and happy
M&A departments at ISPs with foresight who got their IPv6 capability
ready early.
It's now like the calm before the storm. We know that a battle is coming
and we know roughly where and when it will be fought. Reports from
the field indicate that all is quiet, but that is normal just before the
battle commences. The wise general will not be put off by these reports
of peace and quiet, but will prepare his forces and keep an eye on
the preparations of his adversaries.
--Michael Dillon
I did not fat finger anything. In the real world, nearly 100% of consumers
demand IPv6 from their ISP. ...
Hah. No. No they don't. They want, as you point out, "access to the
internet", which they are currently getting JUST FINE. And this will
continue to be the case for a LONG TIME.
ISPs who don't have IPv6 will soon be unable to provide access to all
Internet sites, as content providers begin to bring IPv6 sites onstream.
I've been hearing this BS for over a decade, and yet I've not heard a
single complaint or run into a single site I could not access for lack
of IPv6. Yes, there are IPv6 only sites, but I don't use them, nor do
any of the people I know. What little IPv6 I have used I have had to
go out of my way to *intentionally* use IPv6 over v4.
Until there are common sites that are only accessible via IPv6 -- thus
unavailable to "unevolved" ISP customers, ISP won't be investing
anything in IPv6 deployment. That's not to say ISPs aren't
experimenting with it -- some are, simply that they are not putting
any heavy engineering resources behind it.
The approaching time...
Right now, that snail is on the other side of the world -- almost
literally. Unless someone glues a rocket to it's shell, it won't even
be on the horizon for years. If it were up to me, you, or the rest of
the list, we'd rather simply get the mess over and switch everything
tomorrow. *heh* But that ain't gonna happen. (I still have gear in
use that only does IPX. thankfully, I've escaped Appletalk, but IPX
is still clinging to life.)
--Ricky
I'm a real life user, I know the difference and I could careless about
v6. most anything I want I is on v4 and will still be there long
after ( when ever it is) we run out of v4 addresses. If I'm on a
content provider and I'm putting something new online I want everyone
to see, they will find away for all of us with v4 and credit cards to
see it, and not be so worried about developing countries or the sub 5%
of people in developed countries for now. I'm sure @ some point v6
will see the business need, but while I'm expect to have to deploy it
for marketing reasons, I hope its someone else's problem but its a
must have for real business.
I wondered about that. I would have guess that nearly all "consumers"
(where that is the most savvy label available for them) would reply "huh?".
The next layer up would say, "Yeah, sure...I've got my firewalls set to
stop it along wit the other evil stuff like "ping".