So where's the IPv6?

From what I have heard, the only market live with it is Fairfax Virginia since 8/7/15. I would imagine they are doing customer trails there to iron the kinks out before releasing it to public. I think the part that is holding back the switch being flipped is because of the lack of training and support available on IPv6. Its set up to be pretty easy, and some people may not have to do anything, But even simple changes on a large scale can cause big problems.

I would love to just know how they're going to be rolling it out.

I have a 6RD from CenturyLink and it's horrible.

IPv6 must be static. Hopefully Cox issues a static /56 or /48.

Jackpot said:
IPv6 must be static. Hopefully Cox issues a static /56 or /48.

Comcast went DHCPv6 so I doubt it. It will likely be a /128 WAN IP and /64 LAN IP. However, with that many IPs DHCP rotation may be just about null. 

It's not about the 18-billion-billion addresses in a /64, it's that a /64 is only good for one interface/subnet. Some people have several interfaces/subnets behind NAT.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6177

Jackpot said:
Some people have several interfaces/subnets behind NAT.

Can you explain? What would be the need to have a separate subnet behind NAT with IPv6? Can you give a practical example? Also, it's possible Cox may offer more then 1 IPv6 WAN IP if your router is capable of VLAN a separate network. I am still learning about IPv6 myself, so forgive my ignorance. 

Also, it looks like Santa Barbara, San Diego, Northern VA, Macon, and Gainesville are live with IPv6. Anyone in those areas able to confirm configuration?

You don't need more than one IPv6 address on WAN. In fact, your WAN address can be link-local.

Subnets/interfaces in IPv6 get at least one /64. That's just the way it is. The original RFC3177 recommendation was to give everyone a /48. People whined about being wasteful when, in very general terms, there is enough IPv6 to give every person on Earth almost 40,000 /48 networks.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2^48+%2F+population+of+earth

So assigning every person on Earth a /48 assigns 0.0025% of the address space, in general terms.

It is an essentially-unlimited resource.  These games ISPs are playing are just silly.  It's our internet, not theirs.

Hopefully Cox has a clue.

As for local subnets, I'm currently using 9 - and no, it's not a business.

ETA: If these markets are going live, where are the support pages? Why is this shrouded is secrecy? You'd think Cox would be issuing press releases.

Jackpot said:
You don't need more than one IPv6 address on WAN. In fact, your WAN address can be link-local.

Im still confused. Can't you subnet any IP block into different networks? I didn't think anyone would need a separate WAN IP with IPv6, since each IPv6 is public, but it sounded like you were expressing a need.

Jackpot said:
As for local subnets, I'm currently using 9 - and no, it's not a business.

I don't mean to pry, but could you give a example of what type of needs you have? Maybe a example of how you would subnet your IPv6 network? How do you think it will work now compared to how you want it to work? Trying to wrap my brain around what your saying.

Jackpot said:
If these markets are going live, where are the support pages? Why is this shrouded is secrecy? You'd think Cox would be issuing press releases.

Yea, I'm not sure. Seems strange to me too. Maybe they don't want to go public before everyone is life to avoid confusion and people calling up wanting to know how to get something to work before it can? Also, Cox seems to have a way of training AFTER the fact, so thats a thing too. I have this feeling Cox is telling it's employees "Oh, its all automatic. It will be easy". Yeaaaa...good luck with that. ::cringe::

Let's see, I have my main LAN, a management VLAN, a separate VLAN for the kid who needs to be turned off late hours and proxied, a guest wireless network, and a test lab with three or four VLANs.

Each of those is currently a /24. They all also have a dual-stack /64 from my HE tunnel's /48. A /64 is what is assigned to a network segment.  You don't subnet a /64 down further.

If you know you are dealing with point-to-point links and can't use link-local you can do /128 etc.

The thing you have to do is eliminate the NAT thinking. There is no NAT. All your LAN hosts are publicly-addressable so the WAN port just becomes a transparent interface (just another hop to the internet) as far as they're concerned, so if the ISP sets it up as link-local and routes the *STATIC* /48 to that, you're good.  You are, of course, free to assign a /64 (or many) to your WAN for services running on the firewall if necessary.

Remember, a /48 for every man, woman, and child on Earth is only .0025% of the address space. There is no need to ration it.

Jackpot said:
Remember, a /48 for every man, woman, and child on Earth is only .0025% of the address space. There is no need to ration it.

I understand NAT is not needed. Thats what I don't understand, I thought you said thats what you wanted to do. So are you saying Cox's block isn't big enough for you to subnet out to your needs? Is it possible to keep using HE's tunnel for networking purposes and Cox's IPv6 for traffic? I think you have a some what more complex network then the average consumer, and that might be part of the problem. Not sure of a solution. Anyone else have any ideas?

I'm not saying anything about Cox because I have no information from the secret squirrel club about how they're configuring IPv6.

What I am saying is a single /64 is not enough and whatever they choose to use it has to be static.

I will fully acknowledge my setup is more complicated than most homes, but the simple desire to separate two networks precludes the use of a single /64.

And, no, tunneling to HE is what everyone wants to get rid of.  It's been a good gap filler but native IPv6 is what's needed.