But you actually _can_ shuffle small subnets around
Not really. Your only option is to let the traffic route to the original destination and then tunnel it to where you actually want it. For large bandwidths, this is going to start getting pretty expensive. This also increases latency and increases the number of things that can break your connectivity.
To tell the truth, those clauses are in the contract are mainly an excuse to charge/kick the heavy users.
None of the ISPs I've every used have had any such clauses in the contract. My ISP also has well defined usage limits and what happens if you exceed them is also clearly stated up front (namely, they throttle the connection until the end of the month and give me the option of buying extra bandwidth to lift the restriction). Of course, when choosing an ISP I make a concious effort to avoid any that are promising an unsustainable business model (such as "unlimited" bandwidth) since I know that this can only result in a crappy service for me.
We don't care about the ipv4 space running out. Really, we don't care. We have plenty of IP's available right now.
You may have plenty of IPv4 addresses, but not everyone else does. Maybe you'll start caring when your customers can't see a few key parts of the internet because those parts have no IPv4 addresses?
Nope. They're going to say, "Oh, okay. Who can I buy some IPv4 addresses from instead?" And they'll get their IPv4 addresses from somebody they can persuade to surrender them for a price.
You might be able to "rent" some IPv4 addresses from someone who has some spare, but how are you planning on getting the traffic to your network?
What will *actually* happen when ARIN says "no" is that the organization that needs an IPv4 address will go find somebody who has more IPv4 addresses than they actually need (which at this point is practically everyone) and get one of those
If you think this is possible you need to go read how routing works on the internet. You _cannot_ port individual IPs and small subnets from one organisation to another - the routes simply won't be propagated because small subnets are filtered by most networks (because the routers simply can't cope with that amount of junk in the routing table).
or the use thereof via hosting
Well sure, some people may be happy to pay for someone with a few spare IPv4 addresses to host their server, but a lot of people want a bit more choice about where they are going to host it than that. You're also going to be pretty screwed if you find you need some more addresses on that server after the company who is hosting it has run out.
we're only talking about servers here, since workstations can obviously just go behind NAT
Protocols that dislike NAT are becoming more and more common. If you want to use peer to peer protocols, such as SIP, bittorrent, various games, etc., you don't want NAT.
The only reason I would consider running at less than 1920x1280 would be if I couldn't afford a video card capable of smooth framerates at that speed.
1920x1280 isn't exactly "high res" these days. Would you consider running your games at 3840x2400? I suspect the answer is "no" because you couldn't afford a graphics card powerful enough to give you a sane frame rate at that resolution. And yet these are exactly the sorts of resolutions that certain non-gaming sectors are after (even higher in some cases).
Further proof that no one cares: Steam's Hardware Survey March 2010. Most prevalent resolution amongst gamers? 1280x1024, at 19%. Second place is 1680x1050, at 18%. Neither of those are particularly high, with the highest resolution in the survey being 1920x1200 at 6% and "Other" is only 3.4%.
Since when were gamers ever a good measure of display resolution? Gamers have *never* pushed their hardware up to really high resolutions because high frame rates are more important to them (which makes a lot of sense - you can't appreciate high resolutions on fast moving video anyway).
The people you should be paying attention to are graphic designers, programmers, people using CAD, publishers, etc. These are the people who were using 21" 1600x1200 CRTs when "normal people" were happy with their 15" 800x600 displays and gamers were trying to squeeze high frame rates out of 320x240.
I am interested in your product and wish to purchase one. Please let me know how to get one.
Pretty much all the Free software for DVD playing ignores the restricted user operations flags. My MythTV set top box does this by default...
I can remember being quite shocked at not being able to skip stuff when I first tried using my parents' DVD player since it is not something I've ever experienced on my own hardware (nor is it something I would personally ever put up with - if I bought a device that exhibited this behaviour it would go straight back to the shop as defective).
Who the fuck decided the media producers could decide when I can fast forward, rewind, pause or go to the next track?
You did, by deciding to use a DVD player that cares about the restricted user operations flags. Go get a DVD player that ignores them (or even better: auto-skips any content that is flags as unskippable).
Yep. FireFox 3.5.8 running under Fedora 12 and my locale is set to "cy_GB.UTF-8".
I notice that if I explicitly visit google.com, it automatically redirects me to google.co.uk. Perhaps it's related to one's ISP and location data (or guesswork)?
Maybe. google.com doesn't redirect for me, but I'm on a UK ISP (EntaNet) and the geoip stuff tends to claim I am in London (which is incorrect, but at least its still in the UK).
i shouldnt have to wait for a damn 3rd party ad provider's clogged servers to view the actual page im visiting.
This is something that was pretty much fixed by XHTML. However, like most of the other good things introduced in XHTML, HTML 5 has chucked out that fix so we're back to the bad old days.
The premise is basically: Javascript can use document.write() to insert markup at the script's location. This means that the browser _has_ to execute each piece of javascript at the point is is seen since any of the JS could use document.write() and the browser would need to parse that in context. This gets worse when the JS is loaded from an external file instead of being embedded in the HTML source since it now needs to stop parsing the HTML and wait for the external file to be retrieved.
XHTML banned the use of document.write(), which meant that all the JS could be executed later. I.e. the browser can load the HTML and stylesheet, immediately parse and render that and you can start reading the page while it is still loading the other objects (images, JS, etc). If some JS needs to insert something into the document, it is required to directly modify the DOM tree, and the browser would then dynamically rerender the page.
Both Firefox and IE 8 redirected me to google.co.uk (my appropriate local website) when I typed some nonsense into the search box.
My FireFox sends me to google.com. Which is quite annoying because it means I get the US version of Froogle if I use the "Shopping" link.
But more annoying is the way that Google don't implement some features in every language. E.g. if I want to turn SafeSearch off, I have to switch to English because the Welsh version of the preferences page doesn't have the damned SafeSearch options...
If a server can't handle much load, it's probably not that important
Or it is a very informative hobbyist site with lots of useful info on it, which is comparatively slow compared to a well funded commercial site that has nothing but marketing-speak.
TFA says they are looking at "server response times", but I can't see this being at all useful unless they look at the total page load time (including all the ads that come off slow servers).
Slashdotting, power failure, tsumani, cleaning lady tripping over the network cables, poor server-side scripting, badly configured web server... What's the difference anyway?
The difference is that some of these problems are transitory and some are more permanent. You probably don't want transitory problems to affect the ranking (here's hoping they average it over several crawls).
What was utterly mad about the whole situation was that I was quite legally listening to Radio 4 which is funded by the TV License without paying a penny.
The BBC do so many licence fee funded non-TV things that I would love to see the TV licence abolished and replaced with something that everyone pays, regardless of whether they have a TV or not. Bundle the licence fee in with council tax or something and save money by firing Capita.
I know a lot of people who have no TV and don't pay a TV licence but watch as much TV as I do because they use iPlayer - this is completely legal, but IMHO shouldn't be allowed. (I do have a TV these days, and I pay my licence fee).
Since the "router" in a DSL modem is crap anyway you're better off putting the damn thing in bridge mode and using a seperate router/firewall such as an old pc.
Which is exactly what I do - my crappy D-link router periodically loses the default route (the DSL is up and everything, so it won't bother trying to reinitialise, it just doesn't have a default route in the routing table so no traffic can go out over the DSL), so my solution was simply to put it into bridge mode and let my SheevaPlug be the PPP endpoint.
However, the *vast* majority of the public aren't going to want to (or know how to) do this.
Also, using bridge mode requires you to drop the MTU down to 1492 octets, which causes some other problems. There are far too many idiots in charge of routers who think that dropping all ICMP packets is a good idea. For older Windows systems (which were incapable of PMTU discovery) and people with a 1500 octet MTU this isn't a problem, but for the minority who are running on a lower MTU this causes PMTU discovery to break and TCP sessions will spontaneously hang. The only work-around for this is to ensure that the MTU on all your machines (rather than just the router) is set similarly low, which is a pain in the arse.
but the real cure is sunlight - somebody indepdent looking over their shoulder, namely the press.
I guess the press are "independent", but I don't see that as a good thing. I want the press to be governed by what the public wants - at the moment they really are very independent, able to shape the news to push their own agenda rather than giving balanced news to their readers.
Yes, but just about every newspaper in the world with a web presence would like to set up some sort of paywall. You've just explained why no one wants to go first, but if a couple big papers are willing to invest the money into getting the ball rolling, we could see a wave effect where, in the course of a couple of years, all of those "other newspapers on the Internet" will become for-pay as well.
The quality of most of the journalism these days seems to be about equal to "the bloke down the pub said...". They are going to have to seriously improve that if they want people to pay, because the real "bloke down the pub" (i.e. the bloggers, news aggregators like slashdot, etc) aren't going to be charging.
The TV Licensing people refused to believe that I didn't have one and kept pestering me to get a license. One year I had to sign two copies of the "I promise I don't have a TV set" form within a fortnight, speak to them on the phone and to deal with a TV License Inspector who turned up on my doorstep at 6pm one day.
Whilst the TVLA are threatening and downright obnoxious, they can also be ignored. You don't have to inform them that you don't have a TV, or sign anything and if an inspector turns up then you simply tell him to go away and refuse to let him in. The inspectors have no right to enter your property without your permission unless they have a search warrant, and they can't get a search warrant without some reasonably good evidence that you have a TV. I.e. ignore them and there's nothing they can do but make idle threats.
They aren't quite as bad as they used to be though - they used to regularly send me letters with "YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW" emblazoned on the _outside_ of the envelope. It's a shame I didn't have much money back then, because if I did I would've sued them for libel.
> That may be true of ISP and carrier level hardware, but consumer level > routers do not.
Most of which were supplied by the ISPs.
However, *everyone* has known that IPv6 support is going to be desirable (or even required) within a reasonably short time-frame for quite a long time.
I guess it makes some business sense for the router manufacturers to wait for as long as possible to implement IPv6 support, since it will increase sales (all those IPv4-only routers being sold today will need to be replaced with ones that support IPv6 quite soon. If they were already shipping IPv6 routers, no replacement would be necessary == less future sales).
But for ISPs who supply "free" routers, you would think they would be interested in replacing those routers as infrequently as possible. So they should have been shipping IPv6 capable routers years ago, to reduce the number of IPv4-only ones that they will need to eventually replace.
Unfortunately, whether you're buying a DSL router yourself or getting it from an ISP, you're almost certainly not going to get anything IPv6 capable today. I imagine most home-users expect their DSL routers to last in excess of 5 years (mine is 8 years old at the moment, and I'm not likely to replace it until the local exchange gets the 21CN upgrade towards the end of next year); but I will be surprised if IPv6 connectivity doesn't become very important within the next 3 years.
This is to deal with cases where an ISP sets up "trial" or "beta" IPv6 services for their users, and they don't support it as well as their existing IPv4 service. They might have an IPv6 outage for hours or days, but nobody cares because it's just a trial, right? Meanwhile, the user is having an awful experience trying to pull up www.google.com, and they don't know why, and since every other web site seems to come up without a problem (because they're all still on IPv4), they conclude that it's a problem with Google.
You can avoid much of this by whitelisting ISPs that have demonstrated that they actually care about IPv6.
The ISP shouldn't be handing out IPv6 addresses to normal end-users unless they plan on dealing with outages like they would for IPv4. If they want to "trial" a service that won't remain stable then they need to make sure they only hand out IPv6 addresses to people who have explicitly said they want to be on the trial (i.e. people who understand that they may get poor service, probably people who understand how to drop the IPv6 routes themselves if there is a prolonged outage).
Rather than this "whitelist" idea, a better solution is simply to make more major services available via IPv6. If everyone on a certain ISP regularly can't access google, youtube, bing and facebook for days at a time, that ISP is either going to get their finger out and treat it more seriously, or they are going to lose all their customers.
Part of the problem is that you may have local network IPv6 connectivity but not Internet IPv6 connectivity. Your application looks up an AAAA record, tries to connect, and fails. Hopefully it will then try the A record (if you use gethostent() then you will do this automatically), but it will have to wait for the connection to fail before doing this, which may take a while.
It shouldn't take a while - your router should be returning network unreachable ICMP6 packets which would cause the connection to fail immediately. If it doesn't, fix your router.
I don't think you're going to see IPv6 on the mobile networks any time soon - the telcos who are rolling out IMS networks tend to be using IPv4. Yes, it's stupid, they are spending millions of pounds replacing their obsolete SS7 networks with obsolete IPv4 networks, but thats where we are.
Slashdot Mirror
But you actually _can_ shuffle small subnets around
Not really. Your only option is to let the traffic route to the original destination and then tunnel it to where you actually want it. For large bandwidths, this is going to start getting pretty expensive. This also increases latency and increases the number of things that can break your connectivity.
To tell the truth, those clauses are in the contract are mainly an excuse to charge/kick the heavy users.
None of the ISPs I've every used have had any such clauses in the contract. My ISP also has well defined usage limits and what happens if you exceed them is also clearly stated up front (namely, they throttle the connection until the end of the month and give me the option of buying extra bandwidth to lift the restriction). Of course, when choosing an ISP I make a concious effort to avoid any that are promising an unsustainable business model (such as "unlimited" bandwidth) since I know that this can only result in a crappy service for me.
So what do the rest run? My impression has long been that consumer level routers generally have linux or netbsd inside.
VxWorks is very popular.
We don't care about the ipv4 space running out. Really, we don't care. We have plenty of IP's available right now.
You may have plenty of IPv4 addresses, but not everyone else does. Maybe you'll start caring when your customers can't see a few key parts of the internet because those parts have no IPv4 addresses?
Since consumers are not really allowed to host servers anyway
They aren't? When did that happen? I've always run servers on my home internet connection, my ISP gives me a free /29 block to help me do so too...
Nope. They're going to say, "Oh, okay. Who can I buy some IPv4 addresses from instead?" And they'll get their IPv4 addresses from somebody they can persuade to surrender them for a price.
You might be able to "rent" some IPv4 addresses from someone who has some spare, but how are you planning on getting the traffic to your network?
What will *actually* happen when ARIN says "no" is that the organization that needs an IPv4 address will go find somebody who has more IPv4 addresses than they actually need (which at this point is practically everyone) and get one of those
If you think this is possible you need to go read how routing works on the internet. You _cannot_ port individual IPs and small subnets from one organisation to another - the routes simply won't be propagated because small subnets are filtered by most networks (because the routers simply can't cope with that amount of junk in the routing table).
or the use thereof via hosting
Well sure, some people may be happy to pay for someone with a few spare IPv4 addresses to host their server, but a lot of people want a bit more choice about where they are going to host it than that. You're also going to be pretty screwed if you find you need some more addresses on that server after the company who is hosting it has run out.
we're only talking about servers here, since workstations can obviously just go behind NAT
Protocols that dislike NAT are becoming more and more common. If you want to use peer to peer protocols, such as SIP, bittorrent, various games, etc., you don't want NAT.
The only reason I would consider running at less than 1920x1280 would be if I couldn't afford a video card capable of smooth framerates at that speed.
1920x1280 isn't exactly "high res" these days. Would you consider running your games at 3840x2400? I suspect the answer is "no" because you couldn't afford a graphics card powerful enough to give you a sane frame rate at that resolution. And yet these are exactly the sorts of resolutions that certain non-gaming sectors are after (even higher in some cases).
Further proof that no one cares: Steam's Hardware Survey March 2010. Most prevalent resolution amongst gamers? 1280x1024, at 19%. Second place is 1680x1050, at 18%. Neither of those are particularly high, with the highest resolution in the survey being 1920x1200 at 6% and "Other" is only 3.4%.
Since when were gamers ever a good measure of display resolution? Gamers have *never* pushed their hardware up to really high resolutions because high frame rates are more important to them (which makes a lot of sense - you can't appreciate high resolutions on fast moving video anyway).
The people you should be paying attention to are graphic designers, programmers, people using CAD, publishers, etc. These are the people who were using 21" 1600x1200 CRTs when "normal people" were happy with their 15" 800x600 displays and gamers were trying to squeeze high frame rates out of 320x240.
I am interested in your product and wish to purchase one. Please let me know how to get one.
Pretty much all the Free software for DVD playing ignores the restricted user operations flags. My MythTV set top box does this by default...
I can remember being quite shocked at not being able to skip stuff when I first tried using my parents' DVD player since it is not something I've ever experienced on my own hardware (nor is it something I would personally ever put up with - if I bought a device that exhibited this behaviour it would go straight back to the shop as defective).
Who the fuck decided the media producers could decide when I can fast forward, rewind, pause or go to the next track?
You did, by deciding to use a DVD player that cares about the restricted user operations flags. Go get a DVD player that ignores them (or even better: auto-skips any content that is flags as unskippable).
That's odd. Do you live in the UK?
Yep. FireFox 3.5.8 running under Fedora 12 and my locale is set to "cy_GB.UTF-8".
I notice that if I explicitly visit google.com, it automatically redirects me to google.co.uk. Perhaps it's related to one's ISP and location data (or guesswork)?
Maybe. google.com doesn't redirect for me, but I'm on a UK ISP (EntaNet) and the geoip stuff tends to claim I am in London (which is incorrect, but at least its still in the UK).
i shouldnt have to wait for a damn 3rd party ad provider's clogged servers to view the actual page im visiting.
This is something that was pretty much fixed by XHTML. However, like most of the other good things introduced in XHTML, HTML 5 has chucked out that fix so we're back to the bad old days.
The premise is basically: Javascript can use document.write() to insert markup at the script's location. This means that the browser _has_ to execute each piece of javascript at the point is is seen since any of the JS could use document.write() and the browser would need to parse that in context. This gets worse when the JS is loaded from an external file instead of being embedded in the HTML source since it now needs to stop parsing the HTML and wait for the external file to be retrieved.
XHTML banned the use of document.write(), which meant that all the JS could be executed later. I.e. the browser can load the HTML and stylesheet, immediately parse and render that and you can start reading the page while it is still loading the other objects (images, JS, etc). If some JS needs to insert something into the document, it is required to directly modify the DOM tree, and the browser would then dynamically rerender the page.
Both Firefox and IE 8 redirected me to google.co.uk (my appropriate local website) when I typed some nonsense into the search box.
My FireFox sends me to google.com. Which is quite annoying because it means I get the US version of Froogle if I use the "Shopping" link.
But more annoying is the way that Google don't implement some features in every language. E.g. if I want to turn SafeSearch off, I have to switch to English because the Welsh version of the preferences page doesn't have the damned SafeSearch options...
If a server can't handle much load, it's probably not that important
Or it is a very informative hobbyist site with lots of useful info on it, which is comparatively slow compared to a well funded commercial site that has nothing but marketing-speak.
TFA says they are looking at "server response times", but I can't see this being at all useful unless they look at the total page load time (including all the ads that come off slow servers).
Slashdotting, power failure, tsumani, cleaning lady tripping over the network cables, poor server-side scripting, badly configured web server... What's the difference anyway?
The difference is that some of these problems are transitory and some are more permanent. You probably don't want transitory problems to affect the ranking (here's hoping they average it over several crawls).
For me, the router is provider by my ISP - it's mounted into a wall and pre-wired (as well as the rest of the apartment), and cannot be replaced.
I'm sure your ISP would think seriously about replacing it if none of their customers could get to Google, Facebook, etc...
What was utterly mad about the whole situation was that I was quite legally listening to Radio 4 which is funded by the TV License without paying a penny.
The BBC do so many licence fee funded non-TV things that I would love to see the TV licence abolished and replaced with something that everyone pays, regardless of whether they have a TV or not. Bundle the licence fee in with council tax or something and save money by firing Capita.
I know a lot of people who have no TV and don't pay a TV licence but watch as much TV as I do because they use iPlayer - this is completely legal, but IMHO shouldn't be allowed. (I do have a TV these days, and I pay my licence fee).
Since the "router" in a DSL modem is crap anyway you're better off putting the damn thing in bridge mode and using a seperate router/firewall such as an old pc.
Which is exactly what I do - my crappy D-link router periodically loses the default route (the DSL is up and everything, so it won't bother trying to reinitialise, it just doesn't have a default route in the routing table so no traffic can go out over the DSL), so my solution was simply to put it into bridge mode and let my SheevaPlug be the PPP endpoint.
However, the *vast* majority of the public aren't going to want to (or know how to) do this.
Also, using bridge mode requires you to drop the MTU down to 1492 octets, which causes some other problems. There are far too many idiots in charge of routers who think that dropping all ICMP packets is a good idea. For older Windows systems (which were incapable of PMTU discovery) and people with a 1500 octet MTU this isn't a problem, but for the minority who are running on a lower MTU this causes PMTU discovery to break and TCP sessions will spontaneously hang. The only work-around for this is to ensure that the MTU on all your machines (rather than just the router) is set similarly low, which is a pain in the arse.
but the real cure is sunlight - somebody indepdent looking over their shoulder, namely the press.
I guess the press are "independent", but I don't see that as a good thing. I want the press to be governed by what the public wants - at the moment they really are very independent, able to shape the news to push their own agenda rather than giving balanced news to their readers.
Yes, but just about every newspaper in the world with a web presence would like to set up some sort of paywall. You've just explained why no one wants to go first, but if a couple big papers are willing to invest the money into getting the ball rolling, we could see a wave effect where, in the course of a couple of years, all of those "other newspapers on the Internet" will become for-pay as well.
The quality of most of the journalism these days seems to be about equal to "the bloke down the pub said...". They are going to have to seriously improve that if they want people to pay, because the real "bloke down the pub" (i.e. the bloggers, news aggregators like slashdot, etc) aren't going to be charging.
Have you tried to live without a TV in the UK?
Yes.
The TV Licensing people refused to believe that I didn't have one and kept pestering me to get a license. One year I had to sign two copies of the "I promise I don't have a TV set" form within a fortnight, speak to them on the phone and to deal with a TV License Inspector who turned up on my doorstep at 6pm one day.
Whilst the TVLA are threatening and downright obnoxious, they can also be ignored. You don't have to inform them that you don't have a TV, or sign anything and if an inspector turns up then you simply tell him to go away and refuse to let him in. The inspectors have no right to enter your property without your permission unless they have a search warrant, and they can't get a search warrant without some reasonably good evidence that you have a TV. I.e. ignore them and there's nothing they can do but make idle threats.
They aren't quite as bad as they used to be though - they used to regularly send me letters with "YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW" emblazoned on the _outside_ of the envelope. It's a shame I didn't have much money back then, because if I did I would've sued them for libel.
> That may be true of ISP and carrier level hardware, but consumer level
> routers do not.
Most of which were supplied by the ISPs.
However, *everyone* has known that IPv6 support is going to be desirable (or even required) within a reasonably short time-frame for quite a long time.
I guess it makes some business sense for the router manufacturers to wait for as long as possible to implement IPv6 support, since it will increase sales (all those IPv4-only routers being sold today will need to be replaced with ones that support IPv6 quite soon. If they were already shipping IPv6 routers, no replacement would be necessary == less future sales).
But for ISPs who supply "free" routers, you would think they would be interested in replacing those routers as infrequently as possible. So they should have been shipping IPv6 capable routers years ago, to reduce the number of IPv4-only ones that they will need to eventually replace.
Unfortunately, whether you're buying a DSL router yourself or getting it from an ISP, you're almost certainly not going to get anything IPv6 capable today. I imagine most home-users expect their DSL routers to last in excess of 5 years (mine is 8 years old at the moment, and I'm not likely to replace it until the local exchange gets the 21CN upgrade towards the end of next year); but I will be surprised if IPv6 connectivity doesn't become very important within the next 3 years.
This is to deal with cases where an ISP sets up "trial" or "beta" IPv6 services for their users, and they don't support it as well as their existing IPv4 service. They might have an IPv6 outage for hours or days, but nobody cares because it's just a trial, right? Meanwhile, the user is having an awful experience trying to pull up www.google.com, and they don't know why, and since every other web site seems to come up without a problem (because they're all still on IPv4), they conclude that it's a problem with Google.
You can avoid much of this by whitelisting ISPs that have demonstrated that they actually care about IPv6.
The ISP shouldn't be handing out IPv6 addresses to normal end-users unless they plan on dealing with outages like they would for IPv4. If they want to "trial" a service that won't remain stable then they need to make sure they only hand out IPv6 addresses to people who have explicitly said they want to be on the trial (i.e. people who understand that they may get poor service, probably people who understand how to drop the IPv6 routes themselves if there is a prolonged outage).
Rather than this "whitelist" idea, a better solution is simply to make more major services available via IPv6. If everyone on a certain ISP regularly can't access google, youtube, bing and facebook for days at a time, that ISP is either going to get their finger out and treat it more seriously, or they are going to lose all their customers.
Part of the problem is that you may have local network IPv6 connectivity but not Internet IPv6 connectivity. Your application looks up an AAAA record, tries to connect, and fails. Hopefully it will then try the A record (if you use gethostent() then you will do this automatically), but it will have to wait for the connection to fail before doing this, which may take a while.
It shouldn't take a while - your router should be returning network unreachable ICMP6 packets which would cause the connection to fail immediately. If it doesn't, fix your router.
I don't think you're going to see IPv6 on the mobile networks any time soon - the telcos who are rolling out IMS networks tend to be using IPv4. Yes, it's stupid, they are spending millions of pounds replacing their obsolete SS7 networks with obsolete IPv4 networks, but thats where we are.