Re: [GLLUG] IPv6 addresses
> Back in the days of dial-up, providing a fixed IP address was quite > a > hard problem to solve, given that each time you dialled in you > almost > certainly came in on a different modem/port. Most ISPs simply > assigned > an IP address to each port and thus that's what you got. Demon went > to > a lot of trouble to switch the routing around for each customer and > thus > give you a static address. > I had a colleague in the early 00's who worked at Demon in the late 90's, who said they called it BURP - Bloody Useless Routing Protocol! Cheers Iain -- GLLUG mailing list GLLUG@mailman.lug.org.uk https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug
Re: [GLLUG] IPv6 addresses
On Monday, 19 July 2021 13:40:28 BST Tim Woodall via GLLUG wrote: > > Ah, yes. I misread the OP. > > https://community.bt.com/t5/Archive-Staging/IPV6-Settings/td-p/1699523 > and > https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2016/11/bt-broadband-lines-now-support > -ipv6-internet-addresses.html > > Seems to suggest that you should get a /56. Does the OP get a /64 from > the same /56 each time or is it a different /56 each time? I have re-checked, and the IPv6 address appears to have settled, and that could be true, although I am unable to check at the moment. So far I am not sure about DNS -- Chris Bell Website chrisbell.org.uk -- GLLUG mailing list GLLUG@mailman.lug.org.uk https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug
Re: [GLLUG] IPv6 addresses
Hi, I think something associated with the ipv6 disussion and ISPs. Although they might give you ipv6 addresses, their dsl router probably provides no firewalling for it. I added my own firewall for ipv6. Kind regards James -- GLLUG mailing list GLLUG@mailman.lug.org.uk https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug
Re: [GLLUG] IPv6 addresses
On Mon, 19 Jul 2021, John Winters via GLLUG wrote: On 19/07/2021 11:25, Tim Woodall via GLLUG wrote: On Sun, 18 Jul 2021, Chris Bell via GLLUG wrote: My sister has a relatively new domestic BT broadband connection. The IPv4 address was expected to be dynamic despite BT claiming to have sufficient IPv4 addresses, while the IPv6 address so far has had a static /48 but dynamic /64. [snip] I'm not completely sure how you have static /48 but dynamic /64. Can you not assign yourself a fixed /64 from the /48 if that's what you want? Presumably the sister is getting allocated a /64 which varies, but always comes from the same /48. Ah, yes. I misread the OP. https://community.bt.com/t5/Archive-Staging/IPV6-Settings/td-p/1699523 and https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2016/11/bt-broadband-lines-now-support-ipv6-internet-addresses.html Seems to suggest that you should get a /56. Does the OP get a /64 from the same /56 each time or is it a different /56 each time? -- GLLUG mailing list GLLUG@mailman.lug.org.uk https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug
Re: [GLLUG] IPv6 addresses
On 19/07/2021 11:25, Tim Woodall via GLLUG wrote: On Sun, 18 Jul 2021, Chris Bell via GLLUG wrote: My sister has a relatively new domestic BT broadband connection. The IPv4 address was expected to be dynamic despite BT claiming to have sufficient IPv4 addresses, while the IPv6 address so far has had a static /48 but dynamic /64. [snip] I'm not completely sure how you have static /48 but dynamic /64. Can you not assign yourself a fixed /64 from the /48 if that's what you want? Presumably the sister is getting allocated a /64 which varies, but always comes from the same /48. John -- Xronos Scheduler - https://xronos.uk/ All your school's schedule information in one place. Timetable, activities, homework, public events - the lot Live demo at https://schedulerdemo.xronos.uk/ -- GLLUG mailing list GLLUG@mailman.lug.org.uk https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug
Re: [GLLUG] IPv6 addresses
On Sun, 18 Jul 2021, Chris Bell via GLLUG wrote: My sister has a relatively new domestic BT broadband connection. The IPv4 address was expected to be dynamic despite BT claiming to have sufficient IPv4 addresses, while the IPv6 address so far has had a static /48 but dynamic /64. Is there a cost involved in providing a static address, or are UK customers considered to be incapable of safely using a static address? Perhaps it just allows them to charge extra for a "business" broadband. I'm not completely sure how you have static /48 but dynamic /64. Can you not assign yourself a fixed /64 from the /48 if that's what you want? If you're going to be publishing the /64 in DNS somewhere then <48-prefix>:::/64 would probably make sense. If you're not then some random 16 bits might make more sense. Tim. -- GLLUG mailing list GLLUG@mailman.lug.org.uk https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug
Re: [GLLUG] IPv6 addresses
On 18/07/2021 15:26, Andy Smith via GLLUG wrote: Hello, On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 10:33:03AM +0100, Chris Bell via GLLUG wrote: My sister has a relatively new domestic BT broadband connection. The IPv4 address was expected to be dynamic despite BT claiming to have sufficient IPv4 addresses, while the IPv6 address so far has had a static /48 but dynamic /64. Is there a cost involved in providing a static address, or are UK customers considered to be incapable of safely using a static address? Perhaps it just allows them to charge extra for a "business" broadband. Correct, in most cases it's an artificial segmentation of the market in order to charge more money. There's no technical benefit and quite a few downsides. In some cases the ISP has more customers or is projected to have more customers than they have IPv4 addresses, so some of them have to be CGNAT, or CGNAT will have to be introduced soon, so it is wise not to let people get used to having a dedicated IPv4 address. There is no such issue with IPv6 so make the main prefix (in your example a /48) static is sensible. The end device /64s within that are often dynamic as a security/privacy measure though ideally this is controlled by the customer's equipment not the provider's. In Switzerland some can now get 25Gbit/s symmetric fibre with static IPv4, static IPv6 and HD TV thrown in, for about £50/mo: https://www.init7.net/en/internet/fiber7/ Cheers, Andy To upset people further - my nephew lives in Singapore, and has his home and office 'net connections at 4 Gb/s symmetric for around $7 / month each! When will we finally catch up? Cheers Chris -- GLLUG mailing list GLLUG@mailman.lug.org.uk https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug
Re: [GLLUG] IPv6 addresses
Hello, On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 10:33:03AM +0100, Chris Bell via GLLUG wrote: > My sister has a relatively new domestic BT broadband connection. The IPv4 > address was expected to be dynamic despite BT claiming to have sufficient > IPv4 > addresses, while the IPv6 address so far has had a static /48 but dynamic > /64. > Is there a cost involved in providing a static address, or are UK customers > considered to be incapable of safely using a static address? Perhaps it just > allows them to charge extra for a "business" broadband. Correct, in most cases it's an artificial segmentation of the market in order to charge more money. There's no technical benefit and quite a few downsides. In some cases the ISP has more customers or is projected to have more customers than they have IPv4 addresses, so some of them have to be CGNAT, or CGNAT will have to be introduced soon, so it is wise not to let people get used to having a dedicated IPv4 address. There is no such issue with IPv6 so make the main prefix (in your example a /48) static is sensible. The end device /64s within that are often dynamic as a security/privacy measure though ideally this is controlled by the customer's equipment not the provider's. In Switzerland some can now get 25Gbit/s symmetric fibre with static IPv4, static IPv6 and HD TV thrown in, for about £50/mo: https://www.init7.net/en/internet/fiber7/ Cheers, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting -- GLLUG mailing list GLLUG@mailman.lug.org.uk https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug
Re: [GLLUG] IPv6 addresses
On Sunday, 18 July 2021 11:03:06 BST John Winters via GLLUG wrote: > On 18/07/2021 10:33, Chris Bell via GLLUG wrote: > [snip] > > > Is there a cost involved in providing a static address, or are UK > > customers > > considered to be incapable of safely using a static address? Perhaps it > > just allows them to charge extra for a "business" broadband. > > Back in the days of dial-up, providing a fixed IP address was quite a > hard problem to solve, given that each time you dialled in you almost > certainly came in on a different modem/port. Most ISPs simply assigned > an IP address to each port and thus that's what you got. Demon went to > a lot of trouble to switch the routing around for each customer and thus > give you a static address. Yes, I joined Demon dial-up, but obtained my own domain name then left when they were sold. > > I suspect that that problem no longer exists, so it's probably just a > mechanism to differentiate between cheaper and more expensive packages > anyway. > > Just another reason not to use BT as an ISP. Go to a serious provider > and save yourself infinite amounts of hassle. > > John I paid a single one-off £5.00 for a static IPv4 address but no IPv6 from Plusnet (now owned by BT), but am less bothered now as my websites and emails are handled by Mythic-Beasts, with CA certificates, and a low total cost including the Plusnet charges. A friend living in a Grosvenor Estate flat in Westminster is now delighted to have the output of a RaspberryPi on his 40 inch TV with full fibre to the flat provided by CommunityFibre at £24.00, less an agreed discount because he is 96. He has a 192.168.0.0/16 address but I have yet to discover whether his IPv6 address is actually static. -- Chris Bell Website chrisbell.org.uk -- GLLUG mailing list GLLUG@mailman.lug.org.uk https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug
Re: [GLLUG] IPv6 addresses
On 18/07/2021 10:33, Chris Bell via GLLUG wrote: [snip] Is there a cost involved in providing a static address, or are UK customers considered to be incapable of safely using a static address? Perhaps it just allows them to charge extra for a "business" broadband. Back in the days of dial-up, providing a fixed IP address was quite a hard problem to solve, given that each time you dialled in you almost certainly came in on a different modem/port. Most ISPs simply assigned an IP address to each port and thus that's what you got. Demon went to a lot of trouble to switch the routing around for each customer and thus give you a static address. I suspect that that problem no longer exists, so it's probably just a mechanism to differentiate between cheaper and more expensive packages anyway. Just another reason not to use BT as an ISP. Go to a serious provider and save yourself infinite amounts of hassle. John -- Xronos Scheduler - https://xronos.uk/ All your school's schedule information in one place. Timetable, activities, homework, public events - the lot Live demo at https://schedulerdemo.xronos.uk/ -- GLLUG mailing list GLLUG@mailman.lug.org.uk https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug
