Does your ISP support IPv6?

[itsozgur@fosstodon.org]

@toroidalcore yes, but I have more latency with IPv6 :)))) (about 9ms to 20ms compared) and so they are very much lax about it.

[toroidalcore@masto.hackers.town]

@itsozgur Interesting.

[paul@notnull.space]

@toroidalcore yes, but I purposely signed up to them because they are one of the few in my country that do.
Even so, i had to ask them to enable it

[amrtf@social.amr.tf]

@toroidalcore Yes and no

Telefónica España supports IPv6 only on mobile network, it seems that in households they’re having problems to offer it

[toroidalcore@masto.hackers.town]

@amrtf It seems like mobile providers were a little quicker to catch on with IPv6. I think Verizon here had it on mobile before residential.

[lili@donotsta.re]

@toroidalcore neither of these two options! it clearly has IPv6 websites but the tech support people lie to my face that they don't have it

[jonossaseuraava@post.ebin.club]

@toroidalcore
isp in general? yes. With my museum tech internet? no.

[revk@toot.me.uk]

@dch @toroidalcore wow

[revk@toot.me.uk]

@toroidalcore we, @aaisp, have for a very long time.

[sleepytako@famichiki.jp]

@theraspb @toroidalcore my isp (Rakuten Hikari, Western Japan, NTT West backbone) just sent me the email to change some settings to allow v6 last week. I'm gonna do it when I feel like it.

[kalleboo@bitbang.social]

@toroidalcore My ISP is IPv6-native, and IPv4 is provided over a MAP-E tunnel, so to get IPv4 working you need a router with support for MAP-E. Domestic consumer routers support it, but e.g. Ubiquiti and OpenWrt only very recently gained support.

I pay an extra $5/mo for a public+static IPv4, otherwise you’re stuck being CGNAT where you get a pseudo-random range of ports forwarded.

$35/mo for 10 gigabit fiber.

[arroz@mastodon.social]

@toroidalcore There’s an option missing: yes on fibre, no on mobile. As weird as that may seem.

[muvlon@hachyderm.io]

@toroidalcore Residential: yes (but you need to opt-in via their customer portal)
Mobile: no (CGNAT all the way baby)

[cyb3rrunn3r@cyb3rrunn3r.de]

@toroidalcore@masto.hackers.town Don´t know.
Maybe i am too dumb to activate this.

[mkj@social.mkj.earth]

IPv6 support was among my selection criteria when I choose my current ISP.

@toroidalcore

[tristan@tech.lgbt]

@toroidalcore annoyingly CenturyLink _used_ to halfass this with a 6rd tunnel. they got acquired by Lumen (now AT&T) and 6rd is completely broken and i’ve been told “it was a coincidence it worked to begin with”

[tomaoki@mastodon.bsd.cafe]

@toroidalcore
Newer, faster contracts provide IPv6 using original routers with specifically crafted firmware.
And newer contracts comes with CGNAT for IPv4 which I don't want, so I'm sticking with old 100Mbps service which supplies single IPv4 global address per connection.
The ISP uses irregular variant of PPPoE supporting both IPv4 and IPv6 within single connection, as the ISP was too early adopter of IPv6 for consumer grade FTTH service, thus, needed to develop such an irregular thing with router manufacturers.

[fooker@infosec.exchange]

@theraspb @toroidalcore yes but only for a few niche personal projects. I normally block it in any situation where ipv6 is not actively being used. (Surface attack reduction and all that.. not really useful but when it's active I've seen quite a few bots and not legit traffic)