IPv6 support

hi,

i’ve found no reference about this neither in the manual nor on the net. so my question is, does the wd tv live support ipv6 connectivity?

ipv4 addresses run out within a year and i want to make sure my future mediacenter (which will possibly be the wd tv live) will integrate seamlessly with my LAN, even when the ipv6 switch is due.

No, it doesn’t currently support IPv6.   

Industry experts agree there is no push to make intranets IPv6 yet; the only demand right now is on the “Outside,” the internet. 

Future routers will be IPv4 on the Home Network, and support IPv6 on the ISP side.

This will likely be the case for the next 10+ years.

1 Like

thanks for the info.

TonyPh12345 wrote:

No, it doesn’t currently support IPv6.   

 

Industry experts agree there is no push to make intranets IPv6 yet; the only demand right now is on the “Outside,” the internet. 

 

Future routers will be IPv4 on the Home Network, and support IPv6 on the ISP side.

 

This will likely be the case for the next 10+ years.

 

 

:dizzy_face: I love the way some people just make up things and spout them off as facts. This is funny becasue I just got off a conference call with over a dozen “industry experts” and none of them agreed with this.  It’s even funnier as I am looking at a device on my desk that oddly enough supports IPv6 on each and every interface.

1 Like

Uh, are you REALLY sure you want to go there?

TonyPh12345 wrote:

Uh, are you REALLY sure you want to go there?

Where exactly is there? The fact that you made up something to defend a bad decision made by WD? Trust me when I say IPv6 is coming a whole lot faster than most people realize. If you wish to live in land of make believe where IPv6 internal networks are 10 years away feel free. You are clearly an end user, layer one IT or end developer and have little to nothing to with planning. Expect to see big things starting q4-ish 2011 for IPv6 in every market space home-enterprise.

Did you really register here just to incite a flame based on a month-old post?

I registered here because while looking for information on the WD TV live I saw your post answering a question while at the same time going beyond the question and presenting blatantly false and likely made up on the fly misinformation. It’s great you answered the question, don’t get me wrong, but you went to far when you presented false information as fact or even expert opinion when you are obviously not an IPv6 planning/development or deployment expert. If you were any of these you would know better. 

Call that whatever you like.

NickLeBon wrote:

I registered here because while looking for information on the WD TV live I saw your post answering a question while at the same time going beyond the question and presenting blatantly false and likely made up on the fly misinformation. It’s great you answered the question, don’t get me wrong, but you went to far when you presented false information as fact or even expert opinion when you are obviously not an IPv6 planning/development or deployment expert. If you were any of these you would know better. 

 

Call that whatever you like.

What are you then other than a person who is making a big deal out of some thing.

NickLeBon wrote:> * * *
 

Trust me when I say IPv6 is coming a whole lot faster than most people realize. If you wish to live in land of make believe where IPv6 internal networks are 10 years away feel free. You are clearly an end user, layer one IT or end developer and have little to nothing to with planning. Expect to see big things starting q4-ish 2011 for IPv6 in every market space home-enterprise.

 

Okay, I’ll play along.  To clear up any misconceptions in advance as to where my perspective is coming from on all of this, I am an Information Security consultant with a strong background in network engineering and architecture.

Yes, IPv6 is coming.  As prevously stated, its first uses are going to be to relieve exhaustion of the IPv4 address space on the WAN (i.e., Internet; emphasis intentional).  For most organisations - including home users - IPv4 isn’t going away any time soon.  This is down to the fact that most internal networks (i.e., LAN s) have their IPv4 addresses allocated out of reserved blocks of addresses laid down in RFC 1918 specifcally for LAN-only use.

These blocks of IPv4 addresses cannot be routed on the Internet, full-stop.  Because they are reusable by anyone who wants to run an IP-based LAN, they are not in danger of running out any time soon; completely unrelated networks can use the same address spaces in blissful ignorance of each other.

Further to this: it’s entirely possible to route IPv6 traffic over an existing IPv4 network via encapsulation.  Without going into the technical whys and hows of this, suffice it to say that what this means is that you can have an IPv6 network on the WAN, but the computers on the IPv4 LAN will still be able to send IPv6 traffic out to the WAN.

As an addendum to the above, IPv4 addresses are treated as a subset of IPv6 addresses.  So if you’re sending IPv4 traffic out to an IPv6 WAN, it will still go where it needs to go.

With all of that in mind, there’s not a lot of need for IPv6 support in devices like this - yet.  Yes, the day is coming when it will become necessary.  But the good news is that as most devices of the sort we’re concerned with are typically Linux-based these days and IPv6 is far from an unknown quantity under Linux, adding the capability is a simple matter of rebuilding the kernel with IPv6 support and pushing that change out as part of a firmware upgrade, so the potential for forwards-compatibility is already there.

Now for the corollary to that: if your router can’t route IPv6 out to the Internet (and back in again), it’s all a moot point.  You’d have to either wait for your router to support it, buy one that does, or send out all your IPv6 traffic via IPv4 encapsulation.

I really hope this helps to assuage some of the concern over the (eventual) transisiton to IPv6.  By no means am I saying that it will never be necessary, but by the time we reach the point where it is we’ll probably have all upgraded to newer, better devices by then anyway which support it out of necessity.

Guys, don’t hurry that much with ipv6. Every conference, every f…ing consultant, everybody is complaining for over 15 years ipv4 will run out of addresses. It will run out of addresess, sometime, in the future.

But there are no reasons to start crying! There are still some public /8s not used out there!

Until now, I don’t know anybody (companies) to receive a deny when requesting a public address from Ripe!

Ok, ipv6 will run the future. But there’s no reason to ask for ipv6 for a home device! If your provider assigned you only an ipv6 address, your router has to deal with it.

Don’t cry like a little girl! There’s no need to have a ipv6 address on your home device! Unless you are a network/security specialist able to secure a network propertly! Run for private ipv4 addresses with nat to ipv4 or ipv6!

Hi,

Let me first introduce myself. I’m network manager with a Dutch ISP and also member of the Dutch IPv6 Taskforce.

Facts:

  • around halfway 2011 IANA runs out of IPv4 space

  • around halfway 2012 there will be ISP’s without free IPv4 space.

At that point users will get an IPv6 only connection.

You cannot use a private IPv4 range NATted behind a public IPv6 address. At that point the WD box should have an IPv6 implementation. So it is incorrect ISP’s will continue to deliver NATted private ranges on the inside of a router. Maybe they will use IPv6 to IPv4 proxy’s, but you prefer your mediastream not to go through a proxy.

I know some ISP’s are considering carrier-grade NAT, but I doubt if that’s the way you want your mediastream to go.

I hope my 50 cents will help you.

ps. you can also vote for a good idea :wink:

IPv6 requested by ReMARKable

ReMARKable wrote:> You cannot use a private IPv4 range NATted behind a public IPv6 address.

 

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood what you’re saying here, but that would be contrary to RFC 2766 and RFC 4966, both of which specifiy the mechanisms by which exactly this is supposed to happen.

Casm, the first rfc describes NATPT, the second explains why it should be deprecated… It doesn’t work well at all.

TonyPh12345 wrote:
Casm, the first rfc describes NATPT, the second explains why it should be deprecated… It doesn’t work well at all.

Agreed, but NAT-PT hasn’t (as far as I’m aware) actually been deprecated yet; it’s simply recommended that it be.  It wasn’t really possible to point to one without pointing to the other.

Hi Casm23,

RFC 2766 can only work if you have public IPv4 numbers. I’m talking about 2012 where ISPs are running out of public IPv4 space. Therefore this RFC is not solving the problem. Furthermore I have not seen any implementation in consumer DSL modems for these kind of translations.

As an ISP I’m also not demanding that kind of solutions from the CPE manufacturers. Native IPv6 only is enough for us, we will use a IPv6-to-IPv4-proxy to solve the problem users with IPv6 only cannot reach IPv4 webspace. This is not solving the local problem from the customers who wants to use their WD over the internet.

Of course users can still use privatespace to use their box on their lan, but services like Youtube will not work then anymore.

 any implementation in consumer DSL modems 

Nor will you ever.   Modems are Layer 1 devices.   They’re unaware of Layer 3.

1 Like

DSL modems/router if you want to be a smartass. You are not contributing the discussion as you knew what i ment.