We are considering ADSL routers, either the Netgear DG834 or the PAE-CE84 as
sold by dabs.com. What is their compatibility with IPv6 tunnelled over
IPv4? Also, are they likely to be upgradeable to IPv6 in the future, when
IPv4 is phased out?

--
Member AFFS, WYLUG, SWP (UK), ANL, Leeds SA, Leeds Anti-war coalition
OpenPGP key fingerprint: D0A6 F403 9745 CED4 6B3B 94CC 8D74 8FC9 9F7F CFE4
No to software patents! No to DRM/EUCD - hands off our computers!

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 14:44:46 +0100, Timothy Baldwin
<T.E.Baldwin99@members.leeds.ac.uk> wrote:

Not an issue, 6 is tunnelled *inside* 4.

Dont worry about it, you'll be in your dotage by the time that happens.



greg



--
"vying with Platt for the largest gap
between capability and self perception"

Netgear issues updated firmware for their kit (and specially the
DG834 )every other week...,
you need to think why they need to do that,
and if you like to spend your time endlessly fiddling with it.
Regards,
Martin

"Timothy Baldwin" <T.E.Baldwin99@members.leeds.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:frduo1-22n.ln1@bfg.reinhouse.freeserve.co.uk...

If the routers are being used in NAT mode,
then you will have problems with tunneling IPv6.

That goes for any router which is doing NAT
( and that will be the case in <wild guess> 90% or
more of domestic router installations. )

Of the various IPv6 / IPv4 co-existence and migration strategies,
NAT traversal is problematic for most all of them. TEREDO is one
tunneling mechanism that can support NAT traversal.

Here's some light reading for you:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...v6coexist.mspx

The simplest thing to do is to place the IPv6 router machine on a non-natted
public IP address.

--
Ron

--

"Martin²" <never@give.one> wrote in message
news:6A9vc.9371$wI4.1214075@wards.force9.net...
you might want to compare the number of updates for a "mainstream"
equivalent router such as a cisco 831 - 100s of different software varients
out there under support and more every week

i am not picking on cisco - but frequency of software updates is not really
a fair measure of router quality on its own - after all we would all
complain if a manufacturer didnt issue updates and we were hit by a bug.....

--
Regards

Stephen Hope - return address needs fewer xxs

"Timothy Baldwin" <T.E.Baldwin99@members.leeds.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:frduo1-22n.ln1@bfg.reinhouse.freeserve.co.uk...
it should work - see another poster about NAT issues.

Also, are they likely to be upgradeable to IPv6 in the future, when
since all the low end kit uses software for routing they could be
upgraded....you have to ask whether a manufacturer would bother, esp. as
IPv6 is going to need faster processors to handle routing of 128 bit vs 32
bit addresses - and they will be trying to flog you new kit at that point.

Also as mentioned by someone - even if IPv6 starts to become mainstream, it
isnt likely to force IPv4 to be retired until a large fraction of the
installed base gets migrated / replaced - which is likely to be measured in
decades

so, i doubt that active software support for a consumer product you buy now
will still exist when / if you have to migrate.
Regards

Stephen Hope - return address needs fewer xxs

In article <PSsvc.191$yu2.168@newsfe3-gui>, shope
<stephen_hope@xntlxworld.com> writes
ROFL, you're seriously comparing Netgear with Cisco?

The point is that Cisco software is very solid and updates are only
issued to add new functionality or resolve issues which arise from time
to time.

Netgear firmware of late is an utter disgrace, and appears to be written
by a team of headless chickens who couldn't test anything if their lives
depended on it.
--
Toby

In article <6A9vc.9371$wI4.1214075@wards.force9.net>, Martin²
<never@give.one> writes
Seconded! Used to be a big fan of Netgear stuff, but had nothing but
trouble with their recent kit and their firmware is a disgrace.

Recently put two DG834s into a customer's site and had to use a beta
firmware to get VPNs working properly. In addition the DynDNS
auto-update facility is utterly useless as it can't be told to refresh
the record after a set time even if the address hasn't changed.
--
Toby

"Toby Groves" <news@iconia.org.uk> wrote in message
news:gXErM7AcKiwAFwfr@iconia.org.uk...
no - i am saying that number of updates is no measure of software
instability.

real life is that any complicated bit of software has bugs - the issue is
about whether the ones you know about get in the way of what you want to do,
and how much you trust the supplier to have found most or all of the bugs
you need to worry about

cisco is a lot more stable on an equivalent number of features than the SOHO
suppliers like Netgear - but their gear has a lot more features... and bug
numbers seem to be a square law or exponential function of software
complexity.

finally - some of the software options on low end cisco routers cost more
than a netgear box - so they should be better.

FWIW i deal with cisco s/w every day mainly on switches and routers - and
the number of bugs in various platforms that cause serious issues is
painful.


Again, i dont think this is all that accurate. if you have a cisco router
using mature hardware, and software features that have been around for a
long time, fair enough (although check out the recent SNMP problems which
can crash an IOS router that go back several years).

If you use more recent kit and / or new bells and whistles, then cisco have
their early life cycle problems like any other supplier using software, and
part of the quality control is what users find in deployed kit......
Cant comment directly on that - could be true. i was just objecting to the
lots of updates = poor software argument.
Regards

Stephen Hope - return address needs fewer xxs