@terrorgen said:
Comcast has been doing native IPv6 for at least a decade...
Who knows? I'm even using one of their own modems, too (the XB7).
Then again, their website also says that my city has the upgraded upload speeds, too, and yet I get 1200/35 instead of the 1200/200 that is supposedly offered in my city (and yes, of course I have confirmed provisioning, it's just not yet on my node).
@terrorgen said:
Comcast has been doing native IPv6 for at least a decade...
Who knows? I'm even using one of their own modems, too (the XB7).
Then again, their website also says that my city has the upgraded upload speeds, too, and yet I get 1200/35 instead of the 1200/200 that is supposedly offered in my city (and yes, of course I have confirmed provisioning, it's just not yet on my node).
That's the thing. Just because a ISP supports it in one region doesn't mean they support it everywhere in the whole country, specially since there is no incentive to do so. Even though they have to invest in IPv6 infra, no one is willing to pay them extra for IPv6 feature and most dont even know/care about it as long as they can access tiktok/instagram/facebook/twitter.
Artificial intelligence is no match for our natural stupidity.
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
@cybertech said:
same reason why people are still driving cars with internal combustion engines
Not for long... Atleast in Singapore, they are banning sales of new ICE cars from 2030s and since all vehicals in SG can be used for only 10 years (lookup Singapore COE on google) by 2040s there should be almost all electric cars in Singapore. Some European countries are also enforcing similar rules.
Artificial intelligence is no match for our natural stupidity.
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
@cybertech said:
same reason why people are still driving cars with internal combustion engines
Not for long... Atleast in Singapore, they are banning sales of new ICE cars from 2030s and since all vehicals in SG can be used for only 10 years (lookup Singapore COE on google) by 2040s there should be almost all electric cars in Singapore. Some European countries are also enforcing similar rules.
i believe this may need to be reversed, following what Mercedes is doing as well. Will Singapore and EU ban Mercedes and Toyota totally by 2030?
Also look at US, when Tesla was doing well, oh EV greenwashing perfect and all. Now Chinese brands have overtaken US on almost every aspect; cost, quality, battery technology, market share, they then change their stance to oh, not so low carbon footprint after all.
come to think of it, maybe a little like IPv4 vs v6, just much more subtle.
@cybertech said:
same reason why people are still driving cars with internal combustion engines
Not for long... Atleast in Singapore, they are banning sales of new ICE cars from 2030s and since all vehicals in SG can be used for only 10 years (lookup Singapore COE on google) by 2040s there should be almost all electric cars in Singapore. Some European countries are also enforcing similar rules.
i believe this may need to be reversed, following what Mercedes is doing as well. Will Singapore and EU ban Mercedes and Toyota totally by 2030?
Toyota may be banned from SG as they refuse to make EVs.
@cybertech said:
Also look at US, when Tesla was doing well, oh EV greenwashing perfect and all. Now Chinese brands have overtaken US on almost every aspect; cost, quality, battery technology, market share, they then change their stance to oh, not so low carbon footprint after all.
Same here. Build your dream (BYD) is the most popular brand here and it is Chinese through and through.
Low cost + low quality = most Chinese products.
@cybertech said:
come to think of it, maybe a little like IPv4 vs v6, just much more subtle.
Lol, you got that right! ISPs and DCs just refuse to switch to IPv6 as they need to spend more money for it with zero benifits or returns on investment (ROI). So might as well stick to what works and majority of people wont even care. So why bother?
Artificial intelligence is no match for our natural stupidity.
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
Because IPv6 is expensive. Not for us but for the infrastructure builders. They will transfer the bills to us anyway.
@cybertech said:
same reason why people are still driving cars with internal combustion engines
Infact, EV's history is longer than that of internal combustion engines, and the current battery technology is not enough to support people’s full switch to electric vehicles. The plan to fully switch to EV is a joke at the beginning. The deadline will change and change again just like other "plans".
@cybertech said: Now Chinese brands have overtaken US on almost every aspect; cost, quality, battery technology, market share, they then change their stance to oh, not so low carbon footprint after all.
Those goverment do not need to deny the EV plan if they just wanna against China. What they need is just Tax and discount, and this is what they are doing. According to my observation, China is slowly kicking out from the world supply chain. This seems to be a certain consensus between China and other countries. Political needs to be price in to the cost, and it is expensive.
China hopes that the world will turn to EVs, because China has lagged behind in the development of internal combustion engines for too many years. EV is a new thing and they can have a fair start point with others. But so far, there is no absolute winner on the market. Everything is just begining and this will be a match of the century. I'm not sure whether EV will be the final winner, because the battery is greatly affected by the weather, and also the basic infarstructure (There are many countries do not have good power supply).
Tesla is not selling car, they sell "dreams". It is impossible to have such a stock price for a car company.
@terrorgen said:
Comcast has been doing native IPv6 for at least a decade...
Who knows? I'm even using one of their own modems, too (the XB7).
Then again, their website also says that my city has the upgraded upload speeds, too, and yet I get 1200/35 instead of the 1200/200 that is supposedly offered in my city (and yes, of course I have confirmed provisioning, it's just not yet on my node).
You need to ask for one by enabling dhcpv6 on your router.
@elliotc said:
Because IPv6 is expensive. Not for us but for the infrastructure builders. They will transfer the bills to us anyway.
This is an argument I've heard a lot of times but I don't really buy it. How is ipv6 expensive?
Most routers built the last 20 years or so support ipv6 so whatever kind of hardware you use in your infrastructure it almost certainly already supports ipv6.
Ip's are way cheaper with ipv6 so that's not an extra cost, in fact, it saves you money.
A lot of big providers spends millions of dollars on cg-nat in their infrastructure, also a cost that you will not have with ipv6.
Some people claim that the cost of hiring people that know ipv6 would make it more expensive, but seriously, if you are big enough to talk about building infrastructure and your network people do not already know ipv6, then you are in way over your head.
I can not find a single area where ipv6 would be more expensive than ip4 so I just don't get it. Someone please enlighten me.
I do not know if this is just a local thing, but in Scandinavia and most parts of Europe the really big carriers are switching to ipv6 to actually save money. Most mobile carriers here already run ipv6 only networks and have done so for a decade, I cant even remember the last time I saw my phone pick up a ip4 when using 4G or 5G.
@cybertech said:
same reason why people are still driving cars with internal combustion engines
Infact, EV's history is longer than that of internal combustion engines. And the current battery technology is not enough to support people’s full switch to electric vehicles.> @rcy026 said:
@elliotc said:
Because IPv6 is expensive. Not for us but for the infrastructure builders. They will transfer the bills to us anyway.
This is an argument I've heard a lot of times but I don't really buy it. How is ipv6 expensive?
Most routers built the last 20 years or so support ipv6 so whatever kind of hardware you use in your infrastructure it almost certainly already supports ipv6.
Ip's are way cheaper with ipv6 so that's not an extra cost, in fact, it saves you money.
A lot of big providers spends millions of dollars on cg-nat in their infrastructure, also a cost that you will not have with ipv6.
Some people claim that the cost of hiring people that know ipv6 would make it more expensive, but seriously, if you are big enough to talk about building infrastructure and your network people do not already know ipv6, then you are in way over your head.
I can not find a single area where ipv6 would be more expensive than ip4 so I just don't get it. Someone please enlighten me.
I do not know if this is just a local thing, but in Scandinavia and most parts of Europe the really big carriers are switching to ipv6 to actually save money. Most mobile carriers here already run ipv6 only networks and have done so for a decade, I cant even remember the last time I saw my phone pick up a ip4 when using 4G or 5G.
Then this will be very good business for pitching. Congrats you find a way to be rich.
Then this will be very good business for pitching. Congrats you find a way to be rich.
And how is that? Do you mean that I should pitch this to the major providers?
That's kind of moot, they have known this for 20 years or so. You would have to be incredibly stupid to work in IT on that level and not have heard of ipv6 by now.
@rcy026 said:
Most routers built the last 20 years or so support ipv6 so whatever kind of hardware you use in your infrastructure it almost certainly already supports ipv6.
Ip's are way cheaper with ipv6 so that's not an extra cost, in fact, it saves you money.
So are you saying for ISPs, by buying IPv6 infra, they can get rid of IPv4? How does that work? That will only cause their customers to not be able to access servers using only IPv4 and they will move to ISPs that provide IPv4 IPs.
Moreover many of the ISPs still do not provide individual IPv4 IPs to their end users, sticking to NAT IPs. Even in SG, one of the telco that I have used provide only NAT IPs to it's users. So the actual IP cost isn't that much.
So the main issue is still the same chicken and egg problem. ISPs do not move to IPv6 cause most DCs do not support IPv6. Most DCs do not move to IPv6 cause most ISPs do not support IPv6.
You have still failed to show any reason for ISPs to move to IPv6. An incentive to use IPv6 when IPv4 are still affordable (at least for now). If you want to use IPv6 only for your router & server, go ahead. However when IPv4 IPs becomes too EXPENSIVE to afford, IPv6 will take off. So the best we can do is use both IPv4 and IPv6 till that time...
Artificial intelligence is no match for our natural stupidity.
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
@somik said: Moreover many of the ISPs still do not provide individual IPv4 IPs to their end users, sticking to NAT IPs. Even in SG, one of the telco that I have used provide only NAT IPs to it's users. So the actual IP cost isn't that much.
NAT was developed as a temporary technology, not a permanent solution. It's not designed with new technologies and protocols in mind. It's a superficial, temporary solution to a problem that does not address or resolve the underlying cause of the problem.
Not to mention confusing network topology with multiple NAT layers, which add nothing but problems (incoming connection port forwarding, maintenance, diagnostic where certain requests come from, hard to troubleshoot, limited number of ports, etc.). That's not a solution, it's a band-aid.
@somik said: Moreover many of the ISPs still do not provide individual IPv4 IPs to their end users, sticking to NAT IPs. Even in SG, one of the telco that I have used provide only NAT IPs to it's users. So the actual IP cost isn't that much.
NAT was developed as a temporary technology, not a permanent solution. It's not designed with new technologies and protocols in mind. It's a superficial, temporary solution to a problem that does not address or resolve the underlying cause of the problem.
Not to mention confusing network topology with multiple NAT layers, which add nothing but problems (incoming connection port forwarding, maintenance, diagnostic where certain requests come from, hard to troubleshoot, limited number of ports, etc.). That's not a solution, it's a band-aid.
Still, with most of the people still using the internet to "browse", there is no need for them to have port forwarding. Moreover, NAT still supports almost all of the popular protocols that I know of.
Artificial intelligence is no match for our natural stupidity.
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
@rcy026 said:
Most routers built the last 20 years or so support ipv6 so whatever kind of hardware you use in your infrastructure it almost certainly already supports ipv6.
Ip's are way cheaper with ipv6 so that's not an extra cost, in fact, it saves you money.
So are you saying for ISPs, by buying IPv6 infra, they can get rid of IPv4? How does that work?
It doesn't, that's not how it works. But if you have 10 million clients and can run ipv6 on 9.9 million of them, you can save a buck.
And you do not "buy ipv6 infra", you simply enable it in your existing infra. Unless you run hardware that is 25 years old, it already supports ipv6.
That will only cause their customers to not be able to access servers using only IPv4 and they will move to ISPs that provide IPv4 IPs.
6to4 has been a thing for 20 years.
Moreover many of the ISPs still do not provide individual IPv4 IPs to their end users, sticking to NAT IPs. Even in SG, one of the telco that I have used provide only NAT IPs to it's users. So the actual IP cost isn't that much.
And cg-nat devices are free? Do you have any idea what it costs to NAT hundred of thousands if not millions of clients? It is not cheap.
So the main issue is still the same chicken and egg problem. ISPs do not move to IPv6 cause most DCs do not support IPv6. Most DCs do not move to IPv6 cause most ISPs do not support IPv6.
Most DC's support ipv6, the ones that do not are pretty easy to count. ISP's are in a similar situation, although it varies a bit depending on where in the world you look.
But saying that "most" DC and ISP's do not support ipv6 is simple incorrect. Some still don't, but it is very far from most, and it decreases every day.
You have still failed to show any reason for ISPs to move to IPv6. An incentive to use IPv6 when IPv4 are still affordable (at least for now). If you want to use IPv6 only for your router & server, go ahead. However when IPv4 IPs becomes too EXPENSIVE to afford, IPv6 will take off. So the best we can do is use both IPv4 and IPv6 till that time...
Maybe I wasn't clear but I am not speaking about lowend users or even hosts. Major carriers and ISP's are already using ipv6 as the primary protocol, some are even running ipv6 only. Keep in mind that 99.9% of the users do not even know what an ip is, they do not give a shit if they have ip4, ipv6 or NAT, they are completely oblivious as long as they get to facebook or tiktok or whatever. Lowend users running their own vps are an absolute minority and does not even show up on the radar when talking infrastructure for billions of devices. Buying a few ip's for your vps or even a /24 is completely irrelevant, but when buying millions of addresses then the cost of ip4 quickly becomes an issue. And yes, cg-nat is one solution, but that's not cheap either.
Not to mention that ipv6 has been the official internet standard for years already so sooner or later even the slow ones will have to adapt.
Google shows about 45% native ipv6 traffic already and it is steadily increasing, within a year it will pass 50% so we are almost halfway there. Saying that it will take a while before ipv6 "takes off" is kind of late, even if we still have a long way to go the take off was many years ago.
@terrorgen said:
You need to ask for one by enabling dhcpv6 on your router.
Just in case, I went and pored through my router settings. All the ipv6 ones were already turned on except one, which did indeed relate to dhcp assignments on the local network (and I'm a little confused by that, as I thought the point of ipv6 was that every device would have its own unique ip, i.e. be assigned through the ISP, not a local one, but my confusion likely is unrelated). Unfortunately, even with that turned on, the router says that it's not getting an ipv6 address from the modem. I did the usual powercycling and whatnot, no change.
What am I missing out on, I wonder? Like, as an enduser, what would change in my experience if I had ipv6 as well as ipv4?
Your router gets an IPv6 address with the ISP. Similar to how IPv4 is assigned, this IPv6 will be tied to your wan interface of the router.
Your router also requests a "Prefix Delegation" from the ISP. This time, the ISP will give you just a prefix (/56 to /64, depending on their policy) and configures in their router that any traffic going to any addresses within that prefix will be forwarded to your router with the address assigned in step 1.
Your router will then allocate one address from the assigned prefix to the lan interface, and configures the internal DHCPv6 server to assign an address from the prefix to any clients connected to that interface
This is how every device would get its own unique, globally routable IP address without using NAT.
Can you share the screenshots of your router configuration pages?
@cybertech said:
same reason why people are still driving cars with internal combustion engines
Not for long... Atleast in Singapore, they are banning sales of new ICE cars from 2030s and since all vehicals in SG can be used for only 10 years (lookup Singapore COE on google) by 2040s there should be almost all electric cars in Singapore. Some European countries are also enforcing similar rules.
i believe this may need to be reversed, following what Mercedes is doing as well. Will Singapore and EU ban Mercedes and Toyota totally by 2030?
Toyota may be banned from SG as they refuse to make EVs.
Last I checked, they were making those hydrogen fuel cell cars. Did not know they finally went into EVs. Then again, the only good thing about a toyota is their internal combustion engine and without it, it is nothing much anyway...
Artificial intelligence is no match for our natural stupidity.
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
Last I checked, they were making those hydrogen fuel cell cars. Did not know they finally went into EVs. Then again, the only good thing about a toyota is their internal combustion engine and without it, it is nothing much anyway...
We'll see that when they are selling more different EV models. I can't deny or agree yet.
Last I checked, they were making those hydrogen fuel cell cars. Did not know they finally went into EVs. Then again, the only good thing about a toyota is their internal combustion engine and without it, it is nothing much anyway...
We'll see that when they are selling more different EV models. I can't deny or agree yet.
As long as they are not sourcing the batteries/motors/controllers from cheap Chinese factories, it should be ok. But I agree with your wait and see approach
Comments
prem!
There are still too many ipv4 only.
https://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/
Filen.io - use this link to signup and we both get extra 10GB free.
https://filen.io/r/4d472d5cdb57f6663621a251065e0b51
Comcast has been doing native IPv6 for at least a decade...
The all seeing eye sees everything...
Who knows? I'm even using one of their own modems, too (the XB7).
Then again, their website also says that my city has the upgraded upload speeds, too, and yet I get 1200/35 instead of the 1200/200 that is supposedly offered in my city (and yes, of course I have confirmed provisioning, it's just not yet on my node).
At lot of times, IPv6 is just best effort instead of properly supported.
That's the thing. Just because a ISP supports it in one region doesn't mean they support it everywhere in the whole country, specially since there is no incentive to do so. Even though they have to invest in IPv6 infra, no one is willing to pay them extra for IPv6 feature and most dont even know/care about it as long as they can access tiktok/instagram/facebook/twitter.
Artificial intelligence is no match for our natural stupidity.
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
same reason why people are still driving cars with internal combustion engines
I bench YABS 24/7/365 unless it's a leap year.
Not for long... Atleast in Singapore, they are banning sales of new ICE cars from 2030s and since all vehicals in SG can be used for only 10 years (lookup Singapore COE on google) by 2040s there should be almost all electric cars in Singapore. Some European countries are also enforcing similar rules.
Artificial intelligence is no match for our natural stupidity.
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
i believe this may need to be reversed, following what Mercedes is doing as well. Will Singapore and EU ban Mercedes and Toyota totally by 2030?
Also look at US, when Tesla was doing well, oh EV greenwashing perfect and all. Now Chinese brands have overtaken US on almost every aspect; cost, quality, battery technology, market share, they then change their stance to oh, not so low carbon footprint after all.
come to think of it, maybe a little like IPv4 vs v6, just much more subtle.
I bench YABS 24/7/365 unless it's a leap year.
Toyota may be banned from SG as they refuse to make EVs.
Same here. Build your dream (BYD) is the most popular brand here and it is Chinese through and through.
Low cost + low quality = most Chinese products.
Lol, you got that right! ISPs and DCs just refuse to switch to IPv6 as they need to spend more money for it with zero benifits or returns on investment (ROI). So might as well stick to what works and majority of people wont even care. So why bother?
Artificial intelligence is no match for our natural stupidity.
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
Because IPv6 is expensive. Not for us but for the infrastructure builders. They will transfer the bills to us anyway.
Infact, EV's history is longer than that of internal combustion engines, and the current battery technology is not enough to support people’s full switch to electric vehicles. The plan to fully switch to EV is a joke at the beginning. The deadline will change and change again just like other "plans".
Those goverment do not need to deny the EV plan if they just wanna against China. What they need is just Tax and discount, and this is what they are doing. According to my observation, China is slowly kicking out from the world supply chain. This seems to be a certain consensus between China and other countries. Political needs to be price in to the cost, and it is expensive.
China hopes that the world will turn to EVs, because China has lagged behind in the development of internal combustion engines for too many years. EV is a new thing and they can have a fair start point with others. But so far, there is no absolute winner on the market. Everything is just begining and this will be a match of the century. I'm not sure whether EV will be the final winner, because the battery is greatly affected by the weather, and also the basic infarstructure (There are many countries do not have good power supply).
Tesla is not selling car, they sell "dreams". It is impossible to have such a stock price for a car company.
Action and Reaction in history
You need to ask for one by enabling dhcpv6 on your router.
The all seeing eye sees everything...
there is still alot of countries ISP does not support IPv6 connectivity
TemasekTech - AS139859 and AS209187
Building Cloud Technology with Global Network
Official Website - https://www.TemasekTech.com
This is an argument I've heard a lot of times but I don't really buy it. How is ipv6 expensive?
Most routers built the last 20 years or so support ipv6 so whatever kind of hardware you use in your infrastructure it almost certainly already supports ipv6.
Ip's are way cheaper with ipv6 so that's not an extra cost, in fact, it saves you money.
A lot of big providers spends millions of dollars on cg-nat in their infrastructure, also a cost that you will not have with ipv6.
Some people claim that the cost of hiring people that know ipv6 would make it more expensive, but seriously, if you are big enough to talk about building infrastructure and your network people do not already know ipv6, then you are in way over your head.
I can not find a single area where ipv6 would be more expensive than ip4 so I just don't get it. Someone please enlighten me.
I do not know if this is just a local thing, but in Scandinavia and most parts of Europe the really big carriers are switching to ipv6 to actually save money. Most mobile carriers here already run ipv6 only networks and have done so for a decade, I cant even remember the last time I saw my phone pick up a ip4 when using 4G or 5G.
Perhaps, some people wants to keep their jobs.
The all seeing eye sees everything...
Because IPv6 sucks ass.
Infact, EV's history is longer than that of internal combustion engines. And the current battery technology is not enough to support people’s full switch to electric vehicles.> @rcy026 said:
Then this will be very good business for pitching. Congrats you find a way to be rich.
Action and Reaction in history
And how is that? Do you mean that I should pitch this to the major providers?
That's kind of moot, they have known this for 20 years or so. You would have to be incredibly stupid to work in IT on that level and not have heard of ipv6 by now.
So are you saying for ISPs, by buying IPv6 infra, they can get rid of IPv4? How does that work? That will only cause their customers to not be able to access servers using only IPv4 and they will move to ISPs that provide IPv4 IPs.
Moreover many of the ISPs still do not provide individual IPv4 IPs to their end users, sticking to NAT IPs. Even in SG, one of the telco that I have used provide only NAT IPs to it's users. So the actual IP cost isn't that much.
So the main issue is still the same chicken and egg problem. ISPs do not move to IPv6 cause most DCs do not support IPv6. Most DCs do not move to IPv6 cause most ISPs do not support IPv6.
You have still failed to show any reason for ISPs to move to IPv6. An incentive to use IPv6 when IPv4 are still affordable (at least for now). If you want to use IPv6 only for your router & server, go ahead. However when IPv4 IPs becomes too EXPENSIVE to afford, IPv6 will take off. So the best we can do is use both IPv4 and IPv6 till that time...
Artificial intelligence is no match for our natural stupidity.
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
NAT was developed as a temporary technology, not a permanent solution. It's not designed with new technologies and protocols in mind. It's a superficial, temporary solution to a problem that does not address or resolve the underlying cause of the problem.
Not to mention confusing network topology with multiple NAT layers, which add nothing but problems (incoming connection port forwarding, maintenance, diagnostic where certain requests come from, hard to troubleshoot, limited number of ports, etc.). That's not a solution, it's a band-aid.
Still, with most of the people still using the internet to "browse", there is no need for them to have port forwarding. Moreover, NAT still supports almost all of the popular protocols that I know of.
Artificial intelligence is no match for our natural stupidity.
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
Lots of tech has been developed to aid in transition to IPv6.
4x4lat, NAT64, DNS64, to name a few
The all seeing eye sees everything...
It doesn't, that's not how it works. But if you have 10 million clients and can run ipv6 on 9.9 million of them, you can save a buck.
And you do not "buy ipv6 infra", you simply enable it in your existing infra. Unless you run hardware that is 25 years old, it already supports ipv6.
6to4 has been a thing for 20 years.
And cg-nat devices are free? Do you have any idea what it costs to NAT hundred of thousands if not millions of clients? It is not cheap.
Most DC's support ipv6, the ones that do not are pretty easy to count. ISP's are in a similar situation, although it varies a bit depending on where in the world you look.
But saying that "most" DC and ISP's do not support ipv6 is simple incorrect. Some still don't, but it is very far from most, and it decreases every day.
Maybe I wasn't clear but I am not speaking about lowend users or even hosts. Major carriers and ISP's are already using ipv6 as the primary protocol, some are even running ipv6 only. Keep in mind that 99.9% of the users do not even know what an ip is, they do not give a shit if they have ip4, ipv6 or NAT, they are completely oblivious as long as they get to facebook or tiktok or whatever. Lowend users running their own vps are an absolute minority and does not even show up on the radar when talking infrastructure for billions of devices. Buying a few ip's for your vps or even a /24 is completely irrelevant, but when buying millions of addresses then the cost of ip4 quickly becomes an issue. And yes, cg-nat is one solution, but that's not cheap either.
Not to mention that ipv6 has been the official internet standard for years already so sooner or later even the slow ones will have to adapt.
Google shows about 45% native ipv6 traffic already and it is steadily increasing, within a year it will pass 50% so we are almost halfway there. Saying that it will take a while before ipv6 "takes off" is kind of late, even if we still have a long way to go the take off was many years ago.
Just in case, I went and pored through my router settings. All the ipv6 ones were already turned on except one, which did indeed relate to dhcp assignments on the local network (and I'm a little confused by that, as I thought the point of ipv6 was that every device would have its own unique ip, i.e. be assigned through the ISP, not a local one, but my confusion likely is unrelated). Unfortunately, even with that turned on, the router says that it's not getting an ipv6 address from the modem. I did the usual powercycling and whatnot, no change.
What am I missing out on, I wonder? Like, as an enduser, what would change in my experience if I had ipv6 as well as ipv4?
how DHCPv6 works....
This is how every device would get its own unique, globally routable IP address without using NAT.
Can you share the screenshots of your router configuration pages?
The all seeing eye sees everything...
What? Toyota have one model and many models are coming. https://www.toyota-europe.com/electrification/bev
Filen.io - use this link to signup and we both get extra 10GB free.
https://filen.io/r/4d472d5cdb57f6663621a251065e0b51
Last I checked, they were making those hydrogen fuel cell cars. Did not know they finally went into EVs. Then again, the only good thing about a toyota is their internal combustion engine and without it, it is nothing much anyway...
Artificial intelligence is no match for our natural stupidity.
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
WAF is really low on that one
LinuxFreek.com
"A VPS doesn't have dedicated resources (and so, guaranteed performances) of course" - c1vhosting
We'll see that when they are selling more different EV models. I can't deny or agree yet.
Filen.io - use this link to signup and we both get extra 10GB free.
https://filen.io/r/4d472d5cdb57f6663621a251065e0b51
As long as they are not sourcing the batteries/motors/controllers from cheap Chinese factories, it should be ok. But I agree with your wait and see approach
Artificial intelligence is no match for our natural stupidity.
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.