Re: [uknof] IPv6 default on EE

[Tom Hill]

On 21/11/2018 16:59, Catalin Dominte wrote:
> Mr. Catalin Dominte
> 


;D

-- 
Tom

Re: [uknof] IPv6 default on EE

[Catalin Dominte]

I was going to say that Nick approached me off list and we discussed about 
this. Thank you for your help and all the replies.

Seeing a I use a macbook, I decided just to turn off IPv6, and that fixed it. I 
will re-enable it again once the destination is IPv6 ready . I guess one more 
incentive to do something about IPv6.

>>> I have reached out to her off  list
By the way I am a “he” .



Mr. Catalin Dominte

From: "nick.heat...@bt.com" 
Date: Wednesday, 21 November 2018 at 16:53
To: "t...@kooky.org" , "uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk" 
, "dominte...@gmail.com" 
Subject: RE: [uknof] IPv6 default on EE

Catalin said it was OpenVPN.
EE have many VPNs working from tethered devices across the range of IPsec/SSL 
etc., we’ve been doing this for other cellular devices since end of 2016.

I have reached out to her off  list, I believe the issue is DNS64 + OpenVPN 
related.
I suspect fixing DNS leakage, which is a config in openVPN  – getting 
synthesized  for IPv4 destinations is no use when you want to route IPv4 
into the VPN tunnel.
So use DNS within the tunnel (or shut down IPv6 routing all together will work).
https://www.dnsleaktest.com/how-to-fix-a-dns-leak.html


From: uknof  On Behalf Of Tim Bray
Sent: 21 November 2018 16:38
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] IPv6 default on EE



On 19/11/2018 17:58, Catalin Dominte wrote:
I went on the laptop and set IPv6 for the connection to Link Local Only as 
apple removed the off setting too. Everything now goes via IPv4 and I can now 
do my job again and connect to resources via VPN tunnels on IPv4.Not ideal, I 
know, but I cannot just drop IPv4 for now.



What kind of VPN?Because (correct me if I'm wrong) most PPTP, L2TP and 
IPSec need some helper to get through NAT.

So maybe normal IPv4 stuff would just work, but in the process of the upgrade 
they have broken or lost the NAT helpers you were used to having before?



Tim Bray

Re: [uknof] IPv6 default on EE

[nick.heatley]

Catalin said it was OpenVPN.
EE have many VPNs working from tethered devices across the range of IPsec/SSL 
etc., we’ve been doing this for other cellular devices since end of 2016.

I have reached out to her off  list, I believe the issue is DNS64 + OpenVPN 
related.
I suspect fixing DNS leakage, which is a config in openVPN  – getting 
synthesized  for IPv4 destinations is no use when you want to route IPv4 
into the VPN tunnel.
So use DNS within the tunnel (or shut down IPv6 routing all together will work).
https://www.dnsleaktest.com/how-to-fix-a-dns-leak.html


From: uknof  On Behalf Of Tim Bray
Sent: 21 November 2018 16:38
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] IPv6 default on EE



On 19/11/2018 17:58, Catalin Dominte wrote:
I went on the laptop and set IPv6 for the connection to Link Local Only as 
apple removed the off setting too. Everything now goes via IPv4 and I can now 
do my job again and connect to resources via VPN tunnels on IPv4.Not ideal, I 
know, but I cannot just drop IPv4 for now.



What kind of VPN?Because (correct me if I'm wrong) most PPTP, L2TP and 
IPSec need some helper to get through NAT.

So maybe normal IPv4 stuff would just work, but in the process of the upgrade 
they have broken or lost the NAT helpers you were used to having before?



Tim Bray

Re: [uknof] IPv6 default on EE

[Tim Bray]

On 19/11/2018 17:58, Catalin Dominte wrote:
I went on the laptop and set IPv6 for the connection to Link Local 
Only as apple removed the off setting too. Everything now goes via 
IPv4 and I can now do my job again and connect to resources via VPN 
tunnels on IPv4.Not ideal, I know, but I cannot just drop IPv4 for now. 



What kind of VPN?    Because (correct me if I'm wrong) most PPTP, L2TP 
and IPSec need some helper to get through NAT.


So maybe normal IPv4 stuff would just work, but in the process of the 
upgrade they have broken or lost the NAT helpers you were used to having 
before?



Tim Bray

Re: [uknof] IPv6 default on EE

[Christian de Larrinaga]

Perhaps it was BIS making noises which didn't get upstairs. If this is
now fast changing then that is what is wanted. I'll have to dig down to
find stuff from that era. Hopefully you will have v6 everywhere by the
time the files come in :-).

Christian

Neil J. McRae wrote:
> Christian - I'd like to see more on what that was?  Have you got any links or 
> paperwork ? I can't imagine anyone in their right mind would agree to such a 
> request, because it's quite open ended. 
>
> For some time we have flagged that our earlier hubs would never run V6 (for 
> some years now). The velocity of change in hubs, I believe, means that this 
> isn't that big an issue.
>
> Cheers,
> Neil.
>
> On 20/11/2018, 15:12, "Christian de Larrinaga"  wrote:
>
> I wasn't personalising the point Neil, as you know. But it does look as
> if BT somehow managed to shimmy away from what I understood was a given
> commitment at the time. Thinking about it. It was with DTI/BIS not DCMS
> - it was before the buck was passed to DCMS I think. So maybe that is
> where things got "lost in translation"?
>
> Any chance of an update to an upcoming UK IPv6 Council meeting on these
> remaining v4 only hubs and what BTs plans are for them? It is a decade
> on now. Will you replace them with fibre infrastructure that is v6 ready
> rather than ongoing copper? Or are they likely to remain at the end of
> the queue?
>
> best
> Christian
>
> Neil J. McRae wrote:
>> Before my time at BT so no idea! 
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On 20 Nov 2018, at 14:11, Christian de Larrinaga  wrote:
>>>
>>> (xDSL?) I remember a consultation where this came up and thought DCMS
>>> committed to push for such hubs be made v6 ready (that was targeted
>>> 2008/2010).
>>>
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>> Neil J. McRae wrote:
 Well the league table is meaningless but for us a lot of customers on 
 legacy hubs that we cant put V6 on. Some progress to come on this but 
 there will likely be a long tail.

 Neil 

 Sent from my iPhone

> On 20 Nov 2018, at 10:16, Nicholas Humfrey  
> wrote:
>
> Really exciting the EE are rolling this out, even if there have been a few
> problems that need to be sorted out.
>
> But the UK doesn't seem to have made substantial progress on moving to
> IPv6 in the past year and has dropped down to ~15 in the world league
> tables.
>
> https://www.aelius.com/njh/google-ipv6/
> https://www.akamai.com/uk/en/about/our-thinking/state-of-the-internet-repor
> t/state-of-the-internet-ipv6-adoption-visualization.jsp
>
>
> nick.
>
>
>
> On 20/11/2018, 09:38, "uknof on behalf of Andy Davidson"
>  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Catalin Dominte wrote:
>>> since they [EE] deployed IPv6 in their network (which I think it¹s
>>> good) I
>>> cannot reach certain destinations that are running on IPv4, because
>>> they go via IPv6 by default.
>> Have you been able to troubleshoot this more?  I thought, based on what I
>> learned in relation to this deployment at UKNOF last year that there was
>> a DNS64/NAT64 mechanism for v4 resources with an appropriate A record,
>> and a 464XLAT mechanism for v4 resources which are 'ipv4 literal' - you
>> are not served a DNS name by the application for the server end of the
>> resource.
>>
>> This should on paper make everything reachable. If it isn't then it may
>> be due to something at the content/application end, and of course the
>> actual 'fix' is to get the content/application end problem sorted.
>>
>> Happy to see another large network deploy v6 to subscribers!
>>
>> A
>>
> -
> http://www.bbc.co.uk
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
> may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless 
> specifically stated.
> If you have received it in
> error, please delete it from your system.
> Do not use, copy or disclose the
> information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
> immediately.
> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
> sent or received.
> Further communication will signify your consent to
> this.
> -
>
>>> -- 
>>> Christian de Larrinaga
>>> @ FirstHand
>>> -
>>> +44 7989 386778
>>> c...@firsthand.net
>>>
>

-- 
Christian de Larrinaga
@ FirstHand
-
+44 7989 386778
c...@firsthand.net

Re: [uknof] IPv6 default on EE

[Neil J. McRae]

Christian - I'd like to see more on what that was?  Have you got any links or 
paperwork ? I can't imagine anyone in their right mind would agree to such a 
request, because it's quite open ended. 

For some time we have flagged that our earlier hubs would never run V6 (for 
some years now). The velocity of change in hubs, I believe, means that this 
isn't that big an issue.

Cheers,
Neil.

On 20/11/2018, 15:12, "Christian de Larrinaga"  wrote:

I wasn't personalising the point Neil, as you know. But it does look as
if BT somehow managed to shimmy away from what I understood was a given
commitment at the time. Thinking about it. It was with DTI/BIS not DCMS
- it was before the buck was passed to DCMS I think. So maybe that is
where things got "lost in translation"?

Any chance of an update to an upcoming UK IPv6 Council meeting on these
remaining v4 only hubs and what BTs plans are for them? It is a decade
on now. Will you replace them with fibre infrastructure that is v6 ready
rather than ongoing copper? Or are they likely to remain at the end of
the queue?

best
Christian

Neil J. McRae wrote:
> Before my time at BT so no idea! 
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 20 Nov 2018, at 14:11, Christian de Larrinaga  wrote:
>>
>> (xDSL?) I remember a consultation where this came up and thought DCMS
>> committed to push for such hubs be made v6 ready (that was targeted
>> 2008/2010).
>>
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> Neil J. McRae wrote:
>>> Well the league table is meaningless but for us a lot of customers on 
>>> legacy hubs that we cant put V6 on. Some progress to come on this but there 
>>> will likely be a long tail.
>>>
>>> Neil 
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
 On 20 Nov 2018, at 10:16, Nicholas Humfrey  
 wrote:

 Really exciting the EE are rolling this out, even if there have been a few
 problems that need to be sorted out.

 But the UK doesn't seem to have made substantial progress on moving to
 IPv6 in the past year and has dropped down to ~15 in the world league
 tables.

 https://www.aelius.com/njh/google-ipv6/
 https://www.akamai.com/uk/en/about/our-thinking/state-of-the-internet-repor
 t/state-of-the-internet-ipv6-adoption-visualization.jsp


 nick.



 On 20/11/2018, 09:38, "uknof on behalf of Andy Davidson"
  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Catalin Dominte wrote:
>> since they [EE] deployed IPv6 in their network (which I think it¹s
>> good) I
>> cannot reach certain destinations that are running on IPv4, because
>> they go via IPv6 by default.
> Have you been able to troubleshoot this more?  I thought, based on what I
> learned in relation to this deployment at UKNOF last year that there was
> a DNS64/NAT64 mechanism for v4 resources with an appropriate A record,
> and a 464XLAT mechanism for v4 resources which are 'ipv4 literal' - you
> are not served a DNS name by the application for the server end of the
> resource.
>
> This should on paper make everything reachable. If it isn't then it may
> be due to something at the content/application end, and of course the
> actual 'fix' is to get the content/application end problem sorted.
>
> Happy to see another large network deploy v6 to subscribers!
>
> A
>
 -
 http://www.bbc.co.uk
 This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
 may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless 
 specifically stated.
 If you have received it in
 error, please delete it from your system.
 Do not use, copy or disclose the
 information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
 immediately.
 Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
 sent or received.
 Further communication will signify your consent to
 this.
 -

>> -- 
>> Christian de Larrinaga
>> @ FirstHand
>> -
>> +44 7989 386778
>> c...@firsthand.net
>>

-- 
Christian de Larrinaga
@ FirstHand
-
+44 7989 386778
c...@firsthand.net

Re: [uknof] IPv6 default on EE

[Keith Mitchell]

On 11/20/18 5:12 AM, Nicholas Humfrey wrote:
> Really exciting the EE are rolling this out, even if there have been a few
> problems that need to be sorted out.
> 
> But the UK doesn't seem to have made substantial progress on moving to
> IPv6 in the past year and has dropped down to ~15 in the world league
> tables.

I was slightly astonished to discover last week (by accident, they
didn't actually tell me), that eve  my backslider cable ISP in the US
(the Brighthouse outpost of the Spectrum/TWC/Charter empire), had
finally got around to enabling IPv6 on my service.

Keith

Re: [uknof] IPv6 default on EE

[Christian de Larrinaga]

I wasn't personalising the point Neil, as you know. But it does look as
if BT somehow managed to shimmy away from what I understood was a given
commitment at the time. Thinking about it. It was with DTI/BIS not DCMS
- it was before the buck was passed to DCMS I think. So maybe that is
where things got "lost in translation"?

Any chance of an update to an upcoming UK IPv6 Council meeting on these
remaining v4 only hubs and what BTs plans are for them? It is a decade
on now. Will you replace them with fibre infrastructure that is v6 ready
rather than ongoing copper? Or are they likely to remain at the end of
the queue?

best
Christian

Neil J. McRae wrote:
> Before my time at BT so no idea! 
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 20 Nov 2018, at 14:11, Christian de Larrinaga  wrote:
>>
>> (xDSL?) I remember a consultation where this came up and thought DCMS
>> committed to push for such hubs be made v6 ready (that was targeted
>> 2008/2010).
>>
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> Neil J. McRae wrote:
>>> Well the league table is meaningless but for us a lot of customers on 
>>> legacy hubs that we cant put V6 on. Some progress to come on this but there 
>>> will likely be a long tail.
>>>
>>> Neil 
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
 On 20 Nov 2018, at 10:16, Nicholas Humfrey  
 wrote:

 Really exciting the EE are rolling this out, even if there have been a few
 problems that need to be sorted out.

 But the UK doesn't seem to have made substantial progress on moving to
 IPv6 in the past year and has dropped down to ~15 in the world league
 tables.

 https://www.aelius.com/njh/google-ipv6/
 https://www.akamai.com/uk/en/about/our-thinking/state-of-the-internet-repor
 t/state-of-the-internet-ipv6-adoption-visualization.jsp


 nick.



 On 20/11/2018, 09:38, "uknof on behalf of Andy Davidson"
  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Catalin Dominte wrote:
>> since they [EE] deployed IPv6 in their network (which I think it¹s
>> good) I
>> cannot reach certain destinations that are running on IPv4, because
>> they go via IPv6 by default.
> Have you been able to troubleshoot this more?  I thought, based on what I
> learned in relation to this deployment at UKNOF last year that there was
> a DNS64/NAT64 mechanism for v4 resources with an appropriate A record,
> and a 464XLAT mechanism for v4 resources which are 'ipv4 literal' - you
> are not served a DNS name by the application for the server end of the
> resource.
>
> This should on paper make everything reachable. If it isn't then it may
> be due to something at the content/application end, and of course the
> actual 'fix' is to get the content/application end problem sorted.
>
> Happy to see another large network deploy v6 to subscribers!
>
> A
>
 -
 http://www.bbc.co.uk
 This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
 may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless 
 specifically stated.
 If you have received it in
 error, please delete it from your system.
 Do not use, copy or disclose the
 information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
 immediately.
 Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
 sent or received.
 Further communication will signify your consent to
 this.
 -

>> -- 
>> Christian de Larrinaga
>> @ FirstHand
>> -
>> +44 7989 386778
>> c...@firsthand.net
>>

-- 
Christian de Larrinaga
@ FirstHand
-
+44 7989 386778
c...@firsthand.net

Re: [uknof] IPv6 default on EE

[Paul Mansfield]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 12:05, Neil J. McRae  wrote:
>
> Well the league table is meaningless but for us a lot of customers on legacy 
> hubs that we cant put V6 on. Some progress to come on this but there will 
> likely be a long tail.

how does PlusNet fit into the IPv6 roll-out plans?

I note that the basic Sagem ADSL route from PlusNet on my backup
circuit appears to be IPv6 capable if you go to the "hidden" admin
menus.

are Plusnet sufficiently separate from BT that they have to duplicate
all the work that BT put it, or can they simply flip a switch one day?
I ask because there's been open threads on the Plusnet forums about
IPv6 going back years.

Re: [uknof] IPv6 default on EE

[Neil J. McRae]

Before my time at BT so no idea! 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 20 Nov 2018, at 14:11, Christian de Larrinaga  wrote:
> 
> (xDSL?) I remember a consultation where this came up and thought DCMS
> committed to push for such hubs be made v6 ready (that was targeted
> 2008/2010).
> 
> 
> Christian
> 
> Neil J. McRae wrote:
>> Well the league table is meaningless but for us a lot of customers on legacy 
>> hubs that we cant put V6 on. Some progress to come on this but there will 
>> likely be a long tail.
>> 
>> Neil 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On 20 Nov 2018, at 10:16, Nicholas Humfrey  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Really exciting the EE are rolling this out, even if there have been a few
>>> problems that need to be sorted out.
>>> 
>>> But the UK doesn't seem to have made substantial progress on moving to
>>> IPv6 in the past year and has dropped down to ~15 in the world league
>>> tables.
>>> 
>>> https://www.aelius.com/njh/google-ipv6/
>>> https://www.akamai.com/uk/en/about/our-thinking/state-of-the-internet-repor
>>> t/state-of-the-internet-ipv6-adoption-visualization.jsp
>>> 
>>> 
>>> nick.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 20/11/2018, 09:38, "uknof on behalf of Andy Davidson"
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
 Hi,
 
 Catalin Dominte wrote:
> since they [EE] deployed IPv6 in their network (which I think it¹s
> good) I
> cannot reach certain destinations that are running on IPv4, because
> they go via IPv6 by default.
 Have you been able to troubleshoot this more?  I thought, based on what I
 learned in relation to this deployment at UKNOF last year that there was
 a DNS64/NAT64 mechanism for v4 resources with an appropriate A record,
 and a 464XLAT mechanism for v4 resources which are 'ipv4 literal' - you
 are not served a DNS name by the application for the server end of the
 resource.
 
 This should on paper make everything reachable. If it isn't then it may
 be due to something at the content/application end, and of course the
 actual 'fix' is to get the content/application end problem sorted.
 
 Happy to see another large network deploy v6 to subscribers!
 
 A
 
>>> -
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk
>>> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
>>> may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless 
>>> specifically stated.
>>> If you have received it in
>>> error, please delete it from your system.
>>> Do not use, copy or disclose the
>>> information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
>>> immediately.
>>> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
>>> sent or received.
>>> Further communication will signify your consent to
>>> this.
>>> -
>>> 
> 
> -- 
> Christian de Larrinaga
> @ FirstHand
> -
> +44 7989 386778
> c...@firsthand.net
> 

Re: [uknof] IPv6 default on EE

[Christian de Larrinaga]

(xDSL?) I remember a consultation where this came up and thought DCMS
committed to push for such hubs be made v6 ready (that was targeted
2008/2010).


Christian

Neil J. McRae wrote:
> Well the league table is meaningless but for us a lot of customers on legacy 
> hubs that we cant put V6 on. Some progress to come on this but there will 
> likely be a long tail.
>
> Neil 
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 20 Nov 2018, at 10:16, Nicholas Humfrey  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Really exciting the EE are rolling this out, even if there have been a few
>> problems that need to be sorted out.
>>
>> But the UK doesn't seem to have made substantial progress on moving to
>> IPv6 in the past year and has dropped down to ~15 in the world league
>> tables.
>>
>> https://www.aelius.com/njh/google-ipv6/
>> https://www.akamai.com/uk/en/about/our-thinking/state-of-the-internet-repor
>> t/state-of-the-internet-ipv6-adoption-visualization.jsp
>>
>>
>> nick.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 20/11/2018, 09:38, "uknof on behalf of Andy Davidson"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Catalin Dominte wrote:
 since they [EE] deployed IPv6 in their network (which I think it¹s
 good) I
 cannot reach certain destinations that are running on IPv4, because
 they go via IPv6 by default.
>>> Have you been able to troubleshoot this more?  I thought, based on what I
>>> learned in relation to this deployment at UKNOF last year that there was
>>> a DNS64/NAT64 mechanism for v4 resources with an appropriate A record,
>>> and a 464XLAT mechanism for v4 resources which are 'ipv4 literal' - you
>>> are not served a DNS name by the application for the server end of the
>>> resource.
>>>
>>> This should on paper make everything reachable. If it isn't then it may
>>> be due to something at the content/application end, and of course the
>>> actual 'fix' is to get the content/application end problem sorted.
>>>
>>> Happy to see another large network deploy v6 to subscribers!
>>>
>>> A
>>>
>> -
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk
>> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
>> may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless 
>> specifically stated.
>> If you have received it in
>> error, please delete it from your system.
>> Do not use, copy or disclose the
>> information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
>> immediately.
>> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
>> sent or received.
>> Further communication will signify your consent to
>> this.
>> -
>>

-- 
Christian de Larrinaga
@ FirstHand
-
+44 7989 386778
c...@firsthand.net

Re: [uknof] IPv6 default on EE

[Neil J. McRae]

Well the league table is meaningless but for us a lot of customers on legacy 
hubs that we cant put V6 on. Some progress to come on this but there will 
likely be a long tail.

Neil 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 20 Nov 2018, at 10:16, Nicholas Humfrey  wrote:
> 
> Really exciting the EE are rolling this out, even if there have been a few
> problems that need to be sorted out.
> 
> But the UK doesn't seem to have made substantial progress on moving to
> IPv6 in the past year and has dropped down to ~15 in the world league
> tables.
> 
> https://www.aelius.com/njh/google-ipv6/
> https://www.akamai.com/uk/en/about/our-thinking/state-of-the-internet-repor
> t/state-of-the-internet-ipv6-adoption-visualization.jsp
> 
> 
> nick.
> 
> 
> 
> On 20/11/2018, 09:38, "uknof on behalf of Andy Davidson"
>  wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Catalin Dominte wrote:
>>> since they [EE] deployed IPv6 in their network (which I think it¹s
>>> good) I
>>> cannot reach certain destinations that are running on IPv4, because
>>> they go via IPv6 by default.
>> 
>> Have you been able to troubleshoot this more?  I thought, based on what I
>> learned in relation to this deployment at UKNOF last year that there was
>> a DNS64/NAT64 mechanism for v4 resources with an appropriate A record,
>> and a 464XLAT mechanism for v4 resources which are 'ipv4 literal' - you
>> are not served a DNS name by the application for the server end of the
>> resource.
>> 
>> This should on paper make everything reachable. If it isn't then it may
>> be due to something at the content/application end, and of course the
>> actual 'fix' is to get the content/application end problem sorted.
>> 
>> Happy to see another large network deploy v6 to subscribers!
>> 
>> A
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> http://www.bbc.co.uk
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
> may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless 
> specifically stated.
> If you have received it in
> error, please delete it from your system.
> Do not use, copy or disclose the
> information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
> immediately.
> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
> sent or received.
> Further communication will signify your consent to
> this.
> -
> 

Re: [uknof] IPv6 default on EE

[Nicholas Humfrey]

Really exciting the EE are rolling this out, even if there have been a few
problems that need to be sorted out.

But the UK doesn't seem to have made substantial progress on moving to
IPv6 in the past year and has dropped down to ~15 in the world league
tables.

https://www.aelius.com/njh/google-ipv6/
https://www.akamai.com/uk/en/about/our-thinking/state-of-the-internet-repor
t/state-of-the-internet-ipv6-adoption-visualization.jsp


nick.



On 20/11/2018, 09:38, "uknof on behalf of Andy Davidson"
 wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Catalin Dominte wrote:
>> since they [EE] deployed IPv6 in their network (which I think it¹s
>>good) I
>> cannot reach certain destinations that are running on IPv4, because
>> they go via IPv6 by default.
>
>Have you been able to troubleshoot this more?  I thought, based on what I
>learned in relation to this deployment at UKNOF last year that there was
>a DNS64/NAT64 mechanism for v4 resources with an appropriate A record,
>and a 464XLAT mechanism for v4 resources which are 'ipv4 literal' - you
>are not served a DNS name by the application for the server end of the
>resource.
>
>This should on paper make everything reachable. If it isn't then it may
>be due to something at the content/application end, and of course the
>actual 'fix' is to get the content/application end problem sorted.
>
>Happy to see another large network deploy v6 to subscribers!
>
>A
>



-
http://www.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless 
specifically stated.
If you have received it in
error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the
information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to
this.
-

Re: [uknof] IPv6 default on EE

[Andy Davidson]

Hi,

Catalin Dominte wrote:
> since they [EE] deployed IPv6 in their network (which I think it’s good) I 
> cannot reach certain destinations that are running on IPv4, because 
> they go via IPv6 by default. 

Have you been able to troubleshoot this more?  I thought, based on what I 
learned in relation to this deployment at UKNOF last year that there was a 
DNS64/NAT64 mechanism for v4 resources with an appropriate A record, and a 
464XLAT mechanism for v4 resources which are 'ipv4 literal' - you are not 
served a DNS name by the application for the server end of the resource. 

This should on paper make everything reachable. If it isn't then it may be due 
to something at the content/application end, and of course the actual 'fix' is 
to get the content/application end problem sorted. 

Happy to see another large network deploy v6 to subscribers! 

A

Re: [uknof] IPv6 default on EE

[Catalin Dominte]

Hi Everyone,

I made it work in the end for the tethering connection. Thanks for all the 
replies.

I went on the laptop and set IPv6 for the connection to Link Local Only as 
apple removed the off setting too. Everything now goes via IPv4 and I can now 
do my job again and connect to resources via VPN tunnels on IPv4.Not ideal, I 
know, but I cannot just drop IPv4 for now.

Would be nice to have had an announcement from EE that they were doing this 
though….


Catalin Dominte

From: "nick.heat...@bt.com" 
Date: Monday, 19 November 2018 at 09:41
To: "dominte...@gmail.com" , "uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk" 

Subject: RE: IPv6 default on EE

I have pinged you off list for some info.

From: uknof  On Behalf Of Catalin Dominte
Sent: 18 November 2018 21:01
To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: [uknof] IPv6 default on EE

Hi Everyone,

I am having a bit of a problem with EE at the moment, since they deployed IPv6 
in their network (which I think it’s good) I cannot reach certain destinations 
that are running on IPv4, because they go via IPv6 by default.

EE are blaming a certain iPhone software feature, because they default to IPv6 
since IOS 12 without offering a way to disable it and they say there is nothing 
they can do to fix this. Apple has a bit of a blame too, for not allowing users 
to change APNs which EE said I should do if I want v4 only. Also, when 
tethering from an apple laptop, seems the specific route is disregarded which 
is totally against normal routing paradigm and IPv6 default is enforced.

However I explained to EE that I don’t want IPv4 only, but I certainly want an 
option to say what needs to go where, for certain corner case v4 compatibility 
scenarios, if they are to do this properly.

Has anyone had the same experience? Would be curious to see how much IPv6 
traffic EE does after the change, compared to IPv4. .

Catalin

Re: [uknof] IPv6 default on EE

[Dan Kitchen]

We had a similar issue with a client that had a sizeable deployment of MS 
surface tablets on EE. I’m not sure if this is the same issue you’re having.

When the SIMs were transitioned to IPv6, a dual stack service was not provided 
- it appeared to use NAT64/DNS64, consequently the devices were unable to build 
an IPSEC tunnel to a V4 concentrator and the clients employees were unable to 
access corporate resources remotely.

They ended up moving network because EE support could offer no solution or 
temporary rollback (given the change was made without notice).

While I appreciate what EE have deployed is technically valid, NAT64 is not 
very widely used and therefore likely to encounter issues like this one.

For those of you who have deployed DirectAccess before, you will be familiar 
with similar problems where certain systems and apps just don’t work because 
they are reliant on incompatible layers of translation.

Seems that there was a UKNOF presentation on this previously. While I agree 
that the premise of running dual-stack is a pain from a network operator 
perspective, it is also more of a pain when core business functionality is 
broken and doesn’t do us technology folk any favours.


Dan Kitchen
Managing Director
razorblue | IT Solutions for Business

ddi: 0330 122 7143 | t: 0333 344 6 344 
| w: razorblue.com
On 19 Nov 2018, at 01:02, Catalin Dominte 
mailto:dominte...@gmail.com>> wrote:
WARNING: This e-mail originated from outside the Razorblue Group corporate 
network
Hi Everyone,

I am having a bit of a problem with EE at the moment, since they deployed IPv6 
in their network (which I think it’s good) I cannot reach certain destinations 
that are running on IPv4, because they go via IPv6 by default.

EE are blaming a certain iPhone software feature, because they default to IPv6 
since IOS 12 without offering a way to disable it and they say there is nothing 
they can do to fix this. Apple has a bit of a blame too, for not allowing users 
to change APNs which EE said I should do if I want v4 only. Also, when 
tethering from an apple laptop, seems the specific route is disregarded which 
is totally against normal routing paradigm and IPv6 default is enforced.

However I explained to EE that I don’t want IPv4 only, but I certainly want an 
option to say what needs to go where, for certain corner case v4 compatibility 
scenarios, if they are to do this properly.

Has anyone had the same experience? Would be curious to see how much IPv6 
traffic EE does after the change, compared to IPv4. .

Catalin

Re: [uknof] IPv6 default on EE

[Alfie Pates]

>Apple has a bit of a blame too, for not allowing users to change APNs

IIRC this is carrier-specific (but I may be wrong) - I do know that i'm looking 
at my iPhone right now on Three and I can edit my APNs just fine. Buried in the 
"Mobile Data" menu. 

~a

Re: [uknof] IPv6 default on EE

[Neil J. McRae]

We will probably give an update at the V6 council. Unfortunately all V4 is the 
only option to solve this in the short term.

Neil.

Sent from my iPhone

On 18 Nov 2018, at 21:05, Catalin Dominte 
mailto:dominte...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi Everyone,

I am having a bit of a problem with EE at the moment, since they deployed IPv6 
in their network (which I think it’s good) I cannot reach certain destinations 
that are running on IPv4, because they go via IPv6 by default.

EE are blaming a certain iPhone software feature, because they default to IPv6 
since IOS 12 without offering a way to disable it and they say there is nothing 
they can do to fix this. Apple has a bit of a blame too, for not allowing users 
to change APNs which EE said I should do if I want v4 only. Also, when 
tethering from an apple laptop, seems the specific route is disregarded which 
is totally against normal routing paradigm and IPv6 default is enforced.

However I explained to EE that I don’t want IPv4 only, but I certainly want an 
option to say what needs to go where, for certain corner case v4 compatibility 
scenarios, if they are to do this properly.

Has anyone had the same experience? Would be curious to see how much IPv6 
traffic EE does after the change, compared to IPv4. .

Catalin

[uknof] IPv6 default on EE

[Catalin Dominte]

Hi Everyone,

I am having a bit of a problem with EE at the moment, since they deployed IPv6 
in their network (which I think it’s good) I cannot reach certain destinations 
that are running on IPv4, because they go via IPv6 by default.

EE are blaming a certain iPhone software feature, because they default to IPv6 
since IOS 12 without offering a way to disable it and they say there is nothing 
they can do to fix this. Apple has a bit of a blame too, for not allowing users 
to change APNs which EE said I should do if I want v4 only. Also, when 
tethering from an apple laptop, seems the specific route is disregarded which 
is totally against normal routing paradigm and IPv6 default is enforced.

However I explained to EE that I don’t want IPv4 only, but I certainly want an 
option to say what needs to go where, for certain corner case v4 compatibility 
scenarios, if they are to do this properly.

Has anyone had the same experience? Would be curious to see how much IPv6 
traffic EE does after the change, compared to IPv4. .

Catalin