IPv6 support on Virgin media
Does anyone know whether (and if so when) Virgin plan to implement IPv6 on its network?
Forum Discussion
The way it work right now the IPv4 is that the MAC address of your router is used (via DHCPv4) to assign you an IP address. The way that some dual-stack ISP connections work is that you use stateful DHCPv6 to do the same thing. If (as Ravenstar68 suggested) VM are regrouping to deploy dual-stack this is the route I would expect them to take.
In Modem Mode the MAC address used is of the router you provide and is nothing to do with your Hub, that is just acting as an Ethernet bridge forwarding the packets back and forth. Keep the same router and you should be able to move (within a given geography) and keep your IP address. I'm sure others will correct me if I'm wrong here...😉
How sticky the IP address(s) are will depend on how they implement things. Right now the IPv4 address we get is fairly sticky (for me over the past 20 years I've only had about 6 addresses or so) but when they do a bit of network reorg. With IPv6 this could get to be a bit of a pain in the butt as internal network devices will have to change their address. Not something we need to think about with IPv4 NAT at the moment. I wonder how that will go. Personally I hope that the address range was tied to my account (as it is with my Hurricane Electric tunnel) but there are obviously privacy implications to that.
Given the choice would you have one IPv4 fully or IPv4 NAT (shared) with IPv6 and a subnet.
IPv6 is just not a needed thing if a bank or game was to go IPv6 only then the roll out will happen.
I know of a way to double the current IPv4 (one IP shared by two) at the ISP end by MAC/IP/protocol/port learning and DHCP IP change on conflict that allows port/protocol forwarding because not everyone needs incoming so its likely that will happen first before IPv6 I think.
legacy1 wrote:Given the choice would you have one IPv4 fully or IPv4 NAT (shared) with IPv6 and a subnet.
IPv6 is just not a needed thing if a bank or game was to go IPv6 only then the roll out will happen.
I know of a way to double the current IPv4 (one IP shared by two) at the ISP end by MAC/IP/protocol/port learning and DHCP IP change on conflict that allows port/protocol forwarding because not everyone needs incoming so its likely that will happen first before IPv6 I think.Xbox Live is IPv6 driven, since about 2013!
IPv6 is not needed as long as
A) Customers are happy being CGNAT and
B) Customers don't care about any new products or companies launching.
What you will see is that as new businesses launch from this point forward, there will be a delay before they get a lot of IPv4 addresses. Now, hosting providers have a lot of nifty ways of of getting the most out of a single IP, but it is going to be an issue for them. Not for the older internet players, but the new ones will struggle.
And I agree that there could be a fancy solution that allows automatic forwarding using something similar to UPnP to work with CGNat. That would be a complicated solution that would require something I haven't ever seen published. Why spend a lot of time and money doing that when there is a solution. IPv6...
With regard to CGNAT
Some of the companies that have now gone fully IPv6 looked at CGNAT solutions prior to implementing v6. They found it caused more problems than it solved, which is why they decided to roll out v6.
With regard to XBox Live
While it's true that they've been touting how they use IPv6 addresses to improve the multiplayer experience since 2013 - It's actually a weird state of offairs with them. Their IPv6 currently still relies on Teredo - in fact if you are on a native v6 connection and you disable Teredo - you get the lovely message:
Note: I'm at my parents in Inverness and using their BT connection, which is dual stacked.
If I turn Teredo back on
So ironically the IPv6 element of XBox live STILL relies on IPv4! 🤣 In fact if you are behind CGNAT then you get issues.
With regard to content providers:
Netflix has been dual stacked for some time now.
Facebook has been dual stacked for a number of years.
Google and hence Youtube has also been dual stacked.Amazon is still IPv4 only, and if you dig microsoft.com you still only get v4 addresses.
Tim
"And I agree that there could be a fancy solution that allows automatic forwarding using something similar to UPnP to work with CGNat. That would be a complicated solution that would require something I haven't ever seen published. Why spend a lot of time and money doing that when there is a solution. IPv6..."
Well someone did IP6to4 mess and lets not for get that someone did NAT so why not solution for one IP shared by two each get the WAN IP and a ISP router with MAC/IP/protocol/port learning and DHCP IP change on conflict to allow incoming. Also my solution does not use UPnP or anything the user needs to do.
legacy1 wrote:Well someone did IP6to4 mess and lets not for get that someone did NAT so why not solution for one IP shared by two each get the WAN IP and a ISP router with MAC/IP/protocol/port learning and DHCP IP change on conflict to allow incoming. Also my solution does not use UPnP or anything the user needs to do.
Tunnels are not a mess at all, your using them every day and dont even know it. Heck, that's even my argument for us having Dual-Stack, with 4over6 then it means virgin don't need nearly any IPv4's for use on their network other than what they need to dish out to customers.
NAT is about 25 years old now, about 19 years refined, and look at how poorly it still works at times. And UPnP would be the go to for such a solution that you describe. It's doable, but it would be a unique solution that VM does not have the technical ability to design, test, or implement. For what they would spend on designing such a solution, they could probably deploy full-stack and purchase extra ip addresses if they are just that short. Overly complicated temporary fixes like you describe need to be removed from the equation.
In regards to the Xbox not connecting directly with IPv6, that seems odd as Microsoft says it should work! Perhaps when the device has a reachable IPv4 it's connected through then it defaults to that?. I know a lot of things "Default" to IPv4 when both exist. Not able to test this atm.
As I understand the Xbox situation, since native IPv6 connections make up only a small proportion of global domestic connections, the Xbox needs to use teredo tunnelling for multiplayer games (Xbox live), otherwise it would find itself cut off from the vast majority of other players.
- Will 2020 be the year for IPv6 on Virgin Media
Martin_D wrote:
Will 2020 be the year for IPv6 on Virgin MediaTheir whole inner network is IPv6 now.
I bet the answer is ... No ...
But they have said that they are looking to start rolling the TG3492LG-VMB to non Gig customers. So perhaps they are waiting for everyone to get a Hub4?
Their Migration teams in the past seem to miss a ton of people, so lets hope that's not what they are waiting for.
If they were waiting for everyone to get a hub4 then you're looking at a lot longer than a year, they have literally millions of customers and some of them will still be rocking things like hub2's without any issues, if i were still on a residential service with VM i would have stuck with the hub2 myself, so yeah that isn't going to be what they were waiting for and as far as i know the older hubs "can" do v6 anyway there just isn't really any point at this time, there is still no requirement for v6 to be rolled out as its only the smaller companies that are affected by the v4 shortage, the big names still work on v4 just fine
- Crazy really, All VM had to do was admit CGNAT was not fit for purpose and provide a full dual stack. They could have done this years ago, but priority has been headline speeds rather than future proofing their network.
Leaving IPv6 on the back burner means that once they really have to make the jump to retain connectivity with the rest of the world, they will again be looking for the quick fix for legacy connectivity and argue it no longer is an issue as everyone now uses IPv6! Funny you mentioned the Super Hub 2, at my parents house, I realised it was the Super Hub 2 that isn't even dual band capable, so you have to choose either 2.4 Ghz or 5.0 Ghz on a single band (ewww). As it happens it's in modem mode with a R7000 (one of my older routers) so all the 5GHz capable wireless devices don't get their download speed cut by about 45% because of an Amazon Kindle... This however shows the age of Super Hub's in the network.
I too would be sceptical about Virgin Media wanting to move everyone onto the newest hub for IPv6. The Super Hub 3 supports IPv6, it's just disabled in the production firmware, the Super Hub 2 might even be capable as well, mostly down to the firmware deployed really.
- Are you sure the SuperHub 2 isn't able todo both 2.4 and 5GHz simultaneously? We still have a SuperHub 2 (Hardware Version 3.11) and it is capable of both at the same time as their own separate SSID
Interestingly we notified by VirginMedia that we needed our router replaced but once we told them it was a SuperHub 2 they stepped back and said we didn't need a new one and won't be sending one out. Not that it matters much for us as we we're using modem mode with pfSense though it would seem VM are rather reluctant in replacing hardware. Does they mean they'll push a firmware update to the Hub2 for IPv6 support? who knows take that for what you will.
jamesmacwhite wrote:Funny you mentioned the Super Hub 2, at my parents house, I realised it was the Super Hub 2 that isn't even dual band capable, so you have to choose either 2.4 Ghz or 5.0 Ghz on a single band (ewww). As it happens it's in modem mode with a R7000 (one of my older routers) so all the 5GHz capable wireless devices don't get their download speed cut by about 45% because of an Amazon Kindle... This however shows the age of Super Hub's in the network.
Are you sure it's not a SuperHub 1, that was limited to either 2.4 or 5Ghz but couldn't do both.
The SuperHub 2 can do both.bands simultaneously.
Thats because they know most people don't want to deal with the hub3/4 and the associated PUMA issues
jamesmacwhite wrote:Funny you mentioned the Super Hub 2, at my parents house, I realised it was the Super Hub 2 that isn't even dual band capable, so you have to choose either 2.4 Ghz or 5.0 Ghz on a single band (ewww). As it happens it's in modem mode with a R7000 (one of my older routers) so all the 5GHz capable wireless devices don't get their download speed cut by about 45% because of an Amazon Kindle... This however shows the age of Super Hub's in the network.
I too would be sceptical about Virgin Media wanting to move everyone onto the newest hub for IPv6. The Super Hub 3 supports IPv6, it's just disabled in the production firmware, the Super Hub 2 might even be capable as well, mostly down to the firmware deployed really.
The Super Hub 2 and 2ac definitely support both bands. What you describe does sound like a regular Super Hub.
You should check to see what device they have. If the connection is fine for them then don't worry about it, but the old Super Hub doesn't support the same bonding that the newer units do so could do with being replaced. That said - I would wait for the Hub 4 to become the standard unit and then ask for a replacement.
I just joined Virgin today (got it all installed) and received a Hub 3, and now I'm seeing that there's a Hub 4! That's upsetting...
I was surprised when I was testing out the new 500 Mbps and saw it was only IPv4. It was amusing to see 0/10 on test-ipv6.com
mrjeeves wrote:I just joined Virgin today (got it all installed) and received a Hub 3, and now I'm seeing that there's a Hub 4! That's upsetting...
I was surprised when I was testing out the new 500 Mbps and saw it was only IPv4. It was amusing to see 0/10 on test-ipv6.com
Yep VM still getting rid of hub 3 but is fine for 500Mb with the hub 4 for 1Gb.
IPv4 is all you need
jem101 wrote:
ksim wrote:
legacy1 wrote:
IPv4 is all you need"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
Said nobody ever - it's an urban myth!
The same "urban myths" as:
"The protocol (41) is single threaded"
"IPv6 will not happen till it does NAT because sadly everyone knows NAT as a poor means of a firewall."
"IPv4 is all you need"
legacy1is the best representation of VM, that how you know VM customers will never see IPv6, as the tech team is full of "legacy1"s.I'm certainly not going to comment on what other posters say or claim with little foundation or basis. However you do seem to be fixated on an idea that VM's technical department is staffed with people who are simply unable or incapable of understanding how IPv6 works or how to implement it. Now unless you either work at VM or happen to know the technical expertise of the staff there - you're as guilty of making stuff up as anyone else!
Ask yourself this, what's most likely to be the case;
a) VM have deliberately employed engineers who are all incompetent or woefully ignorant of IPv6 for what ever reason but at the same time can keep the rest of the system working (well mostly working)
or
b) VM have made a business decision that they simply don't need to implement an IPv6 solution now as they have sufficient IPv4 addresses available to satisfy current and immediate future need. The number of VM users who will even know what IPv6 is, is infinitesimally tiny - and the number who would gain any benefit from it is even smaller.
Would you rather they rushed to implement a similar situation to the one they inherited in Ireland? DSLite which precludes you putting the hub in modem mode and using your own equipment? But still they've got IPv6 so everything's good yes?
John
In simple terms what is IPv6 ?
I think it is the IP number using 6 pairs not 4 as used currently.
MikeRobbo wrote:In simple terms what is IPv6 ?
I think it is the IP number using 6 pairs not 4 as used currently.
> a) VM have deliberately employed engineers
yes, buy cheap, get crap.> VM have made a business decision that they simply don't need to implement an IPv6 solution now as they have sufficient IPv4 addresses available to satisfy current and immediate future need.
limit of IPv4 addresses is not a reason not to implement IPv6, IPv6 has a lot of other benefits.> Would you rather they rushed to implement a similar situation to the one they inherited in Ireland?
LG has implemented IPv6 in many countries already, do not see their userbase going down because of that, and yes, would rather see DS-Lite, than IPv4 only.
ksim wrote:> a) VM have deliberately employed engineers
yes, buy cheap, get crap.Speculation based on no evidence at all then!
> VM have made a business decision that they simply don't need to implement an IPv6 solution now as they have sufficient IPv4 addresses available to satisfy current and immediate future need.
limit of IPv4 addresses is not a reason not to implement IPv6, IPv6 has a lot of other benefits.Such as? Care to say what these are? Oh and please don't just include 'no need to employ NAT' without saying why this is advantageous.
> Would you rather they rushed to implement a similar situation to the one they inherited in Ireland?
LG has implemented IPv6 in many countries already, do not see their userbase going down because of that, and yes, would rather see DS-Lite, than IPv4 only.
Of course their user base isn't going down, know why? Because for the vast, vast majority of users IPv6 is a complete irrelevance. Really; you would give up the ability to put the VM hub into modem mode just to gain the holy grail of IPv6 connectivity?
- > Speculation based on no evidence at all then!
Try to talk with them, I did.
> Such as?
is google not available over ipv4 for you?
Security and end-to-end encryption are some of the major ones, NAT also, I have tons of devices/services I want to access in my home/or they require external access, and the absence of NAT is a major one.
> Because for the vast, vast majority of users IPv6 is a complete irrelevance.
The vast majority do not care about even being behind NAT, that's why as a service provider I have to implement tons of stupid **bleep** proxies/forwarding rules to not throw away VM customers using my services.
> Really; you would give up the ability to put the VM hub into modem mode just to gain the holy grail of IPv6 connectivity?
Really
