Some Telcos and ISPs are Frustrating IPv6 Adoption (guardian.ng)

An anonymous reader writes: "There are indications that telecommunications operators and traditional ISPs in the country are frustrating adoption of Internet Protocol version six (IPv6) by other networks," reports Nigeria's Guardian newspaper, citing Nigeria CommunicationsWeek. The magazine found 32 networks with IPv6 addresses -- but only three which are using them. And the newspaper cites "a network engineer with a university who does not want to be named" frustrated that their ISP's network isn't IPv6-compatible, so the university can't use its own IPv6 address. "Mohammed Rudman, chairman, IPv6 Council Nigeria, said that most telecommunications operators and internet service providers in the country have not adopted IPv6 which raises the issue of compatibility with other networks."
Firefox has a fast-fallback-to-IPv4 option, which you can disable in about:config (as well as an option to disable IPv6 altogether). But "the Chrome browser supports IPv6 natively and doesn't allow users to decide which protocol to use," reports TechGlimpse.com.

How does your browser perform? Long-time Slashdot reader ourlovecanlastforeve shared a link to Test-IPv6.com, which detects whether "when given the choice, your browser decided it would prefer to use IPv4 instead of IPv6."

Comments

NAT (IPv4 Address sharing) is not security.

[CraigCruden]

Stateful Firewalls Provide Security (Not NAT)

NAT does not provide any real network security, it actually prevents many security measures.

Consumer grade firewalls (most of them) built into the modems they get from their ISP -- are often almost useless when it comes to providing real security. Many of them don't even bother to force the administrator to have anything more than the default password.

By your argument -- you would be even happier if your ISP shares your IP address across many households (double NAT'd) -- which mine does.

Re:IPv6 is my preferred protocol now

[Rick Zeman]

>Comcast did it right

Bullshit. They can't even set up a static address range.

Don't confuse architectural design and their overall design with everyday low-level ineptness. Haven't you seen the ads for Comcast techs: "...no experience necessary?" You said it yourself, "...the installer who came" not "the network engineer who came....."
Don't confuse the two.

Re:Static or dynamic; that's the question.

[rtb61]

They are crippling IPv6 for one reason and one reason only. They have an existing investment in IPv4 addresses that they rent for profit or can sell, IPv6 simply reduces IPv4 addresses from being worth hundreds of millions of dollars to sweet fuck all. The longer they can keep out IPv6 the more money they can make out of IPv4. Straight up greed.

Re:C'mon Editors

[kenh]

Agreed, too many/most Slashdot readers simply read the headline and then try and blame some combination of the following:

a) Ajit Pai
b) Donald Trump
c) Republicans
d) Comcast, Verizon, etc
e) Windows/Microsoft

Re: Isn't this good?

[unixisc]

For the same reason that one uses dynamic addresses currently in IPv4: to prevent any attack vectors from pinpointing a device's IP address and then using that to break into the system. In fact, 'security extensions' (which is IPv6's term for dynamic addresses) is the default Microsoft way of assigning addresses to any device: they don't use EUI-64