Reasons for a home router to bother with IPv6 [closed]
In an idle moment, I enabled IPv6 on my ASUS RC-AT1200 router. As a result, my ISP assigns me both IPv6 and IPv4 addresses. The problems created are too minor to mention. The benefits seem to be non-existent.
Obviously, if my ISP required it or I had to access sites that didn't support IPv4, enabling IPv6 would have been essential. But not only is this not true, I can't seem to find any ISP or site that doesn't support IPv4.
So, should I care? What circumstances would benefit me for having IPv6?
networking router ipv6
asked Dec 23 '18 at 22:52
Isaac RabinovitchIsaac Rabinovitch
2,5961728
closed as too broad by Ramhound, Twisty Impersonator, DavidPostill♦ Dec 25 '18 at 13:33
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |
In an idle moment, I enabled IPv6 on my ASUS RC-AT1200 router. As a result, my ISP assigns me both IPv6 and IPv4 addresses. The problems created are too minor to mention. The benefits seem to be non-existent.
Obviously, if my ISP required it or I had to access sites that didn't support IPv4, enabling IPv6 would have been essential. But not only is this not true, I can't seem to find any ISP or site that doesn't support IPv4.
So, should I care? What circumstances would benefit me for having IPv6?
networking router ipv6
asked Dec 23 '18 at 22:52
Isaac RabinovitchIsaac Rabinovitch
2,5961728
closed as too broad by Ramhound, Twisty Impersonator, DavidPostill♦ Dec 25 '18 at 13:33
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
There are already IPv6-only services on the Internet. Many datacenters simply have no IPv4 addresses to give, so IPv6-only VPSes are now a thing at the low end. Of course the biggest IPv6-only service is currently Xbox Live. There is no IPv4 in Xbox Live. If an Xbox owner hasn't got IPv6, the device will create an IPv6 tunnel for all connectivity to Xbox Live and to other players. This is obviously slower than native IPv6.
– Michael Hampton
Dec 24 '18 at 1:15
@MichaelHampton That's a good answer. Pity you posted it as a comment.
– Isaac Rabinovitch
Dec 24 '18 at 2:19
add a comment |
In an idle moment, I enabled IPv6 on my ASUS RC-AT1200 router. As a result, my ISP assigns me both IPv6 and IPv4 addresses. The problems created are too minor to mention. The benefits seem to be non-existent.
Obviously, if my ISP required it or I had to access sites that didn't support IPv4, enabling IPv6 would have been essential. But not only is this not true, I can't seem to find any ISP or site that doesn't support IPv4.
So, should I care? What circumstances would benefit me for having IPv6?
networking router ipv6
asked Dec 23 '18 at 22:52
Isaac RabinovitchIsaac Rabinovitch
2,5961728
In an idle moment, I enabled IPv6 on my ASUS RC-AT1200 router. As a result, my ISP assigns me both IPv6 and IPv4 addresses. The problems created are too minor to mention. The benefits seem to be non-existent.
Obviously, if my ISP required it or I had to access sites that didn't support IPv4, enabling IPv6 would have been essential. But not only is this not true, I can't seem to find any ISP or site that doesn't support IPv4.
So, should I care? What circumstances would benefit me for having IPv6?
networking router ipv6
networking router ipv6
asked Dec 23 '18 at 22:52
Isaac RabinovitchIsaac Rabinovitch
2,5961728
asked Dec 23 '18 at 22:52
Isaac RabinovitchIsaac Rabinovitch
2,5961728
asked Dec 23 '18 at 22:52
Isaac RabinovitchIsaac Rabinovitch
2,5961728
asked Dec 23 '18 at 22:52
Isaac RabinovitchIsaac Rabinovitch
2,5961728
asked Dec 23 '18 at 22:52
Isaac RabinovitchIsaac Rabinovitch
2,5961728
2,5961728
closed as too broad by Ramhound, Twisty Impersonator, DavidPostill♦ Dec 25 '18 at 13:33
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
closed as too broad by Ramhound, Twisty Impersonator, DavidPostill♦ Dec 25 '18 at 13:33
Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
There are already IPv6-only services on the Internet. Many datacenters simply have no IPv4 addresses to give, so IPv6-only VPSes are now a thing at the low end. Of course the biggest IPv6-only service is currently Xbox Live. There is no IPv4 in Xbox Live. If an Xbox owner hasn't got IPv6, the device will create an IPv6 tunnel for all connectivity to Xbox Live and to other players. This is obviously slower than native IPv6.
– Michael Hampton
Dec 24 '18 at 1:15
@MichaelHampton That's a good answer. Pity you posted it as a comment.
– Isaac Rabinovitch
Dec 24 '18 at 2:19
add a comment |
There are already IPv6-only services on the Internet. Many datacenters simply have no IPv4 addresses to give, so IPv6-only VPSes are now a thing at the low end. Of course the biggest IPv6-only service is currently Xbox Live. There is no IPv4 in Xbox Live. If an Xbox owner hasn't got IPv6, the device will create an IPv6 tunnel for all connectivity to Xbox Live and to other players. This is obviously slower than native IPv6.
– Michael Hampton
Dec 24 '18 at 1:15
@MichaelHampton That's a good answer. Pity you posted it as a comment.
– Isaac Rabinovitch
Dec 24 '18 at 2:19
There are already IPv6-only services on the Internet. Many datacenters simply have no IPv4 addresses to give, so IPv6-only VPSes are now a thing at the low end. Of course the biggest IPv6-only service is currently Xbox Live. There is no IPv4 in Xbox Live. If an Xbox owner hasn't got IPv6, the device will create an IPv6 tunnel for all connectivity to Xbox Live and to other players. This is obviously slower than native IPv6.
– Michael Hampton
Dec 24 '18 at 1:15
There are already IPv6-only services on the Internet. Many datacenters simply have no IPv4 addresses to give, so IPv6-only VPSes are now a thing at the low end. Of course the biggest IPv6-only service is currently Xbox Live. There is no IPv4 in Xbox Live. If an Xbox owner hasn't got IPv6, the device will create an IPv6 tunnel for all connectivity to Xbox Live and to other players. This is obviously slower than native IPv6.
– Michael Hampton
Dec 24 '18 at 1:15
@MichaelHampton That's a good answer. Pity you posted it as a comment.
– Isaac Rabinovitch
Dec 24 '18 at 2:19
@MichaelHampton That's a good answer. Pity you posted it as a comment.
– Isaac Rabinovitch
Dec 24 '18 at 2:19
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
It's a misconception that you only need IPv6 when you don't get IPv4 anymore. IPv4 and IPv6 can be used side-by-side, and the quality of IPv4 is getting worse and worse every day.
Because of the lack of available IPv4 addresses the existing addresses are being shared between customers with techniques like Carrier-Grade-NAT and DS-Lite, where the ISP is doing central NAT. Or with MAP or LW4o6 where each user gets only a limited set of TCP/UDP ports.
IPv6 on the other hand provides a "clean" connection: no NAT, no sharing, and plenty of addresses for each device in your house. Hosting your own server, setting up VPNs to/from your house, all possible if you want to.
And because of the quality of IPv4 going down the drain, the relative benefit of IPv6 becomes larger and larger. The most important services on the internet (Google, Youtube, LinkedIn, Facebook, Netflix, etc) are reachable over IPv6, and measurements show that IPv6 provides faster connectivity in some cases (and equal performance in the other cases).
IPv6 is therefore becoming important when you want good internet connectivity.
answered Dec 23 '18 at 23:22
Sander SteffannSander Steffann
3,919817
Doing NAT is a huge drain on a home router's limited CPU power, so much so that some routers have a special chip to just handle this. Straight routing in IPv6 is much lighter and so more performant. CGNAT can also be less reliable if the ISP hasn't implemented it very well. They have huge connection tracking tables; when these go full, users start being unable to make IPv4 connections, and with no idea why, and the problem just goes away just as mysteriously.
– Michael Hampton
Dec 24 '18 at 1:10
OK, "connection quality" is on point. NAT overhead and IP address exhaustion are not, not for people using a consumer-grade home network. (This is why I mentioned my router model.) And I have no difficulty with VPN, w or w/o IPv6. Take these points into account and mention some sites that require IPv6, and I'll flag you as the best answer.
– Isaac Rabinovitch
Dec 24 '18 at 2:16
NAT overhead is relevant for fast connections and under powered consumer routers (gigabit, for example). SmallNetBuilder has some benchmarks demonstrating the difference smallnetbuilder.com/old-tools/charts/router/bar/74-wan-to-lan
– nijave
Dec 24 '18 at 2:53
@Isaac No I'm not going to edit my answer because you think you know better
– Sander Steffann
Dec 25 '18 at 17:01
@SanderSteffann LOL. Whatever.
– Isaac Rabinovitch
Dec 27 '18 at 20:31
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It's a misconception that you only need IPv6 when you don't get IPv4 anymore. IPv4 and IPv6 can be used side-by-side, and the quality of IPv4 is getting worse and worse every day.
Because of the lack of available IPv4 addresses the existing addresses are being shared between customers with techniques like Carrier-Grade-NAT and DS-Lite, where the ISP is doing central NAT. Or with MAP or LW4o6 where each user gets only a limited set of TCP/UDP ports.
IPv6 on the other hand provides a "clean" connection: no NAT, no sharing, and plenty of addresses for each device in your house. Hosting your own server, setting up VPNs to/from your house, all possible if you want to.
And because of the quality of IPv4 going down the drain, the relative benefit of IPv6 becomes larger and larger. The most important services on the internet (Google, Youtube, LinkedIn, Facebook, Netflix, etc) are reachable over IPv6, and measurements show that IPv6 provides faster connectivity in some cases (and equal performance in the other cases).
IPv6 is therefore becoming important when you want good internet connectivity.
answered Dec 23 '18 at 23:22
Sander SteffannSander Steffann
3,919817
Doing NAT is a huge drain on a home router's limited CPU power, so much so that some routers have a special chip to just handle this. Straight routing in IPv6 is much lighter and so more performant. CGNAT can also be less reliable if the ISP hasn't implemented it very well. They have huge connection tracking tables; when these go full, users start being unable to make IPv4 connections, and with no idea why, and the problem just goes away just as mysteriously.
– Michael Hampton
Dec 24 '18 at 1:10
OK, "connection quality" is on point. NAT overhead and IP address exhaustion are not, not for people using a consumer-grade home network. (This is why I mentioned my router model.) And I have no difficulty with VPN, w or w/o IPv6. Take these points into account and mention some sites that require IPv6, and I'll flag you as the best answer.
– Isaac Rabinovitch
Dec 24 '18 at 2:16
NAT overhead is relevant for fast connections and under powered consumer routers (gigabit, for example). SmallNetBuilder has some benchmarks demonstrating the difference smallnetbuilder.com/old-tools/charts/router/bar/74-wan-to-lan
– nijave
Dec 24 '18 at 2:53
@Isaac No I'm not going to edit my answer because you think you know better
– Sander Steffann
Dec 25 '18 at 17:01
@SanderSteffann LOL. Whatever.
– Isaac Rabinovitch
Dec 27 '18 at 20:31
add a comment |
It's a misconception that you only need IPv6 when you don't get IPv4 anymore. IPv4 and IPv6 can be used side-by-side, and the quality of IPv4 is getting worse and worse every day.
Because of the lack of available IPv4 addresses the existing addresses are being shared between customers with techniques like Carrier-Grade-NAT and DS-Lite, where the ISP is doing central NAT. Or with MAP or LW4o6 where each user gets only a limited set of TCP/UDP ports.
IPv6 on the other hand provides a "clean" connection: no NAT, no sharing, and plenty of addresses for each device in your house. Hosting your own server, setting up VPNs to/from your house, all possible if you want to.
And because of the quality of IPv4 going down the drain, the relative benefit of IPv6 becomes larger and larger. The most important services on the internet (Google, Youtube, LinkedIn, Facebook, Netflix, etc) are reachable over IPv6, and measurements show that IPv6 provides faster connectivity in some cases (and equal performance in the other cases).
IPv6 is therefore becoming important when you want good internet connectivity.
answered Dec 23 '18 at 23:22
Sander SteffannSander Steffann
3,919817
Doing NAT is a huge drain on a home router's limited CPU power, so much so that some routers have a special chip to just handle this. Straight routing in IPv6 is much lighter and so more performant. CGNAT can also be less reliable if the ISP hasn't implemented it very well. They have huge connection tracking tables; when these go full, users start being unable to make IPv4 connections, and with no idea why, and the problem just goes away just as mysteriously.
– Michael Hampton
Dec 24 '18 at 1:10
OK, "connection quality" is on point. NAT overhead and IP address exhaustion are not, not for people using a consumer-grade home network. (This is why I mentioned my router model.) And I have no difficulty with VPN, w or w/o IPv6. Take these points into account and mention some sites that require IPv6, and I'll flag you as the best answer.
– Isaac Rabinovitch
Dec 24 '18 at 2:16
NAT overhead is relevant for fast connections and under powered consumer routers (gigabit, for example). SmallNetBuilder has some benchmarks demonstrating the difference smallnetbuilder.com/old-tools/charts/router/bar/74-wan-to-lan
– nijave
Dec 24 '18 at 2:53
@Isaac No I'm not going to edit my answer because you think you know better
– Sander Steffann
Dec 25 '18 at 17:01
@SanderSteffann LOL. Whatever.
– Isaac Rabinovitch
Dec 27 '18 at 20:31
add a comment |
It's a misconception that you only need IPv6 when you don't get IPv4 anymore. IPv4 and IPv6 can be used side-by-side, and the quality of IPv4 is getting worse and worse every day.
Because of the lack of available IPv4 addresses the existing addresses are being shared between customers with techniques like Carrier-Grade-NAT and DS-Lite, where the ISP is doing central NAT. Or with MAP or LW4o6 where each user gets only a limited set of TCP/UDP ports.
IPv6 on the other hand provides a "clean" connection: no NAT, no sharing, and plenty of addresses for each device in your house. Hosting your own server, setting up VPNs to/from your house, all possible if you want to.
And because of the quality of IPv4 going down the drain, the relative benefit of IPv6 becomes larger and larger. The most important services on the internet (Google, Youtube, LinkedIn, Facebook, Netflix, etc) are reachable over IPv6, and measurements show that IPv6 provides faster connectivity in some cases (and equal performance in the other cases).
IPv6 is therefore becoming important when you want good internet connectivity.
answered Dec 23 '18 at 23:22
Sander SteffannSander Steffann
3,919817
It's a misconception that you only need IPv6 when you don't get IPv4 anymore. IPv4 and IPv6 can be used side-by-side, and the quality of IPv4 is getting worse and worse every day.
Because of the lack of available IPv4 addresses the existing addresses are being shared between customers with techniques like Carrier-Grade-NAT and DS-Lite, where the ISP is doing central NAT. Or with MAP or LW4o6 where each user gets only a limited set of TCP/UDP ports.
IPv6 on the other hand provides a "clean" connection: no NAT, no sharing, and plenty of addresses for each device in your house. Hosting your own server, setting up VPNs to/from your house, all possible if you want to.
And because of the quality of IPv4 going down the drain, the relative benefit of IPv6 becomes larger and larger. The most important services on the internet (Google, Youtube, LinkedIn, Facebook, Netflix, etc) are reachable over IPv6, and measurements show that IPv6 provides faster connectivity in some cases (and equal performance in the other cases).
IPv6 is therefore becoming important when you want good internet connectivity.
answered Dec 23 '18 at 23:22
Sander SteffannSander Steffann
3,919817
answered Dec 23 '18 at 23:22
Sander SteffannSander Steffann
3,919817
answered Dec 23 '18 at 23:22
Sander SteffannSander Steffann
3,919817
answered Dec 23 '18 at 23:22
Sander SteffannSander Steffann
3,919817
3,919817
Doing NAT is a huge drain on a home router's limited CPU power, so much so that some routers have a special chip to just handle this. Straight routing in IPv6 is much lighter and so more performant. CGNAT can also be less reliable if the ISP hasn't implemented it very well. They have huge connection tracking tables; when these go full, users start being unable to make IPv4 connections, and with no idea why, and the problem just goes away just as mysteriously.
– Michael Hampton
Dec 24 '18 at 1:10
OK, "connection quality" is on point. NAT overhead and IP address exhaustion are not, not for people using a consumer-grade home network. (This is why I mentioned my router model.) And I have no difficulty with VPN, w or w/o IPv6. Take these points into account and mention some sites that require IPv6, and I'll flag you as the best answer.
– Isaac Rabinovitch
Dec 24 '18 at 2:16
NAT overhead is relevant for fast connections and under powered consumer routers (gigabit, for example). SmallNetBuilder has some benchmarks demonstrating the difference smallnetbuilder.com/old-tools/charts/router/bar/74-wan-to-lan
– nijave
Dec 24 '18 at 2:53
@Isaac No I'm not going to edit my answer because you think you know better
– Sander Steffann
Dec 25 '18 at 17:01
@SanderSteffann LOL. Whatever.
– Isaac Rabinovitch
Dec 27 '18 at 20:31
add a comment |
Doing NAT is a huge drain on a home router's limited CPU power, so much so that some routers have a special chip to just handle this. Straight routing in IPv6 is much lighter and so more performant. CGNAT can also be less reliable if the ISP hasn't implemented it very well. They have huge connection tracking tables; when these go full, users start being unable to make IPv4 connections, and with no idea why, and the problem just goes away just as mysteriously.
– Michael Hampton
Dec 24 '18 at 1:10
OK, "connection quality" is on point. NAT overhead and IP address exhaustion are not, not for people using a consumer-grade home network. (This is why I mentioned my router model.) And I have no difficulty with VPN, w or w/o IPv6. Take these points into account and mention some sites that require IPv6, and I'll flag you as the best answer.
– Isaac Rabinovitch
Dec 24 '18 at 2:16
NAT overhead is relevant for fast connections and under powered consumer routers (gigabit, for example). SmallNetBuilder has some benchmarks demonstrating the difference smallnetbuilder.com/old-tools/charts/router/bar/74-wan-to-lan
– nijave
Dec 24 '18 at 2:53
@Isaac No I'm not going to edit my answer because you think you know better
– Sander Steffann
Dec 25 '18 at 17:01
@SanderSteffann LOL. Whatever.
– Isaac Rabinovitch
Dec 27 '18 at 20:31
Doing NAT is a huge drain on a home router's limited CPU power, so much so that some routers have a special chip to just handle this. Straight routing in IPv6 is much lighter and so more performant. CGNAT can also be less reliable if the ISP hasn't implemented it very well. They have huge connection tracking tables; when these go full, users start being unable to make IPv4 connections, and with no idea why, and the problem just goes away just as mysteriously.
– Michael Hampton
Dec 24 '18 at 1:10
Doing NAT is a huge drain on a home router's limited CPU power, so much so that some routers have a special chip to just handle this. Straight routing in IPv6 is much lighter and so more performant. CGNAT can also be less reliable if the ISP hasn't implemented it very well. They have huge connection tracking tables; when these go full, users start being unable to make IPv4 connections, and with no idea why, and the problem just goes away just as mysteriously.
– Michael Hampton
Dec 24 '18 at 1:10
OK, "connection quality" is on point. NAT overhead and IP address exhaustion are not, not for people using a consumer-grade home network. (This is why I mentioned my router model.) And I have no difficulty with VPN, w or w/o IPv6. Take these points into account and mention some sites that require IPv6, and I'll flag you as the best answer.
– Isaac Rabinovitch
Dec 24 '18 at 2:16
OK, "connection quality" is on point. NAT overhead and IP address exhaustion are not, not for people using a consumer-grade home network. (This is why I mentioned my router model.) And I have no difficulty with VPN, w or w/o IPv6. Take these points into account and mention some sites that require IPv6, and I'll flag you as the best answer.
– Isaac Rabinovitch
Dec 24 '18 at 2:16
NAT overhead is relevant for fast connections and under powered consumer routers (gigabit, for example). SmallNetBuilder has some benchmarks demonstrating the difference smallnetbuilder.com/old-tools/charts/router/bar/74-wan-to-lan
– nijave
Dec 24 '18 at 2:53
NAT overhead is relevant for fast connections and under powered consumer routers (gigabit, for example). SmallNetBuilder has some benchmarks demonstrating the difference smallnetbuilder.com/old-tools/charts/router/bar/74-wan-to-lan
– nijave
Dec 24 '18 at 2:53
@Isaac No I'm not going to edit my answer because you think you know better
– Sander Steffann
Dec 25 '18 at 17:01
@Isaac No I'm not going to edit my answer because you think you know better
– Sander Steffann
Dec 25 '18 at 17:01
@SanderSteffann LOL. Whatever.
– Isaac Rabinovitch
Dec 27 '18 at 20:31
@SanderSteffann LOL. Whatever.
– Isaac Rabinovitch
Dec 27 '18 at 20:31
add a comment |
There are already IPv6-only services on the Internet. Many datacenters simply have no IPv4 addresses to give, so IPv6-only VPSes are now a thing at the low end. Of course the biggest IPv6-only service is currently Xbox Live. There is no IPv4 in Xbox Live. If an Xbox owner hasn't got IPv6, the device will create an IPv6 tunnel for all connectivity to Xbox Live and to other players. This is obviously slower than native IPv6.
– Michael Hampton
Dec 24 '18 at 1:15
@MichaelHampton That's a good answer. Pity you posted it as a comment.
– Isaac Rabinovitch
Dec 24 '18 at 2:19