[kwlug-disc] Teksavvy service - two public ips, plus ipv6

[Chris Irwin]

On Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 01:22:04PM GMT, Ronald Barnes wrote:
>Mikalai Birukou wrote on 2024-08-25 13:13:
>
>>I finally got around to check the other port, plugging a laptop directly.
>>
>>- My laptop gets ipv4 address that is also a publicly visible address.
>
>That is odd that you have 2 IPv4 addresses. I would not complain.

I was doing this for a while as well -- I had one IPv4 for my network 
(NAT, etc), and used the other IPv4 as inbound (as in, that's the IP I 
had in DNS for some stuff).

I've since stopped for several reasons:

* My network hardware (Unifi) doesn't understand the concept of having 
   multiple WAN connections and not wanting them to be fail-over.

* I was having stability issues. Still am, it was unrelated to 
   multiple-IPs, and entirely related to the crappy Rogers last-mile.  
   However, having multiple IPs triggered a stop on the tech-support flow 
   chart first.

* I've since migrated to cloudflare tunnels, so separating inbound 
   traffic is less urgent.

But during the few months I was using it, it seemed to work fine.

>>- Laptop also got ipv6 address that is also publicly visible.
>
>I'm hoping they'll going all in on IPv6, it'd be nice to have it as an 
>option.
>
>Teksavvy on Shaw didn't support it, but now that Shaw -> Rogers, 
>things may have changed.

I believe Teksavvy themselves have been IPv6 capable for well over a 
decade. This was somewhat limited to their DSL connections, due to 
having a PPP tunnel. And their native Fibre in Chatham, of course.

On cable networks, it depends on the last-mile provider. Rogers has 
supported IPv6 for a significant number of years, and this has been 
usable with teksavvy as well.

I was using a Hurricane Electric IPv6 tunnel since at least 2016, and 
switched over to Native IPv6 (Teksavvy on Rogers) at least by 2019. I 
don't have a note with the exact dates, but I do have a support ticket 
from 2019 mentioning native IPv6.

>Any idea on the netblock of IPv6 you have? Maybe a /64?

I have a /56, which I've been able to split apart for my internal 
network.

IPv6 is assigned via DHCPv6, and I had to change my Prefix Delegation 
Size to 56. I'm not sure if that is part of the DHCPv6 request or not, 
but it seems to just work fine. I haven't tried other common options, 
like 48. 56 is more than I need.

>>I understand that ipv6 can already be publicly visible, but with ipv4 
>>we supposed to not have enough of them. Am I missing something?

The question is *who* is out of IPv4 addresses. There are afaik no 
unassigned network blocks now.

That said, there's still plenty of unused IPv4 addresses -- in that 
organizations with an IPv4 network are not using 100% of that address 
space.

There are organizations with large unused blocks (universities with a 
whole /8 or /16, for example).

ISPs like Rogers & Teksavvy might have more IP address space than they 
have customers, so they haven't had to clamp down on the double IPv4 
addressing yet.

But if you're an ISP needing another routable network, you're SOL. Or 
you're buying another orgs unused address space (at a premium).

FWIW, there are ISPs in other regions already doing Carrier-Grade NAT.  
I'd imagine that might happen here at some point too, where a routable 
IPv4 address is an add-on cost (or limited to upper-tier plans).

-- 
Chris Irwin

email:   chris at chrisirwin.ca
  xmpp:   chris at chrisirwin.ca
   web: https://chrisirwin.ca