forcing IPV6 with asus router

[Sg1]

Hi I Enabled IPV6 in the router ( ac87u). I called the ISP and they said they support IPV6.

I have a cisco modem 3925 connected to the ac87u in bridge mode.

I assume as long the provider supports IPv6 the cisco doesn't have anything to do with IPV6.

I use DHPC from the ISP, I rebooted the cisco and ac87u but still have the old address. How do I force the ac87u to obtain IPV6?


Thanks

 

[jegesq]

You need a DOCSIS 3.0 modem to utilize IPv6. Fortunately for you, the Cisco 3925 is DOCSIS 3.0, so it will allow you to receive IPv6.

When you say "I still have the old address" after rebooting, how are you checking that?

I'm not familiar with the 87U's GUI, but assume it's similar (or identical) to the same GUI found in other ASUSWRT (or Merlin) firmware. If so, click on the IPv6 tab, and check to see that you settings for IPv6 are set to "native" and "stateless". If they aren't, change those settings, click "apply" and see if that gives your router an IPv6 address in the box which identifies your address (again in the IPv6 tab).

You can also check IPv6 by simply Googling "What is my IPv6 address" and hitting return (Google detects if you have such an address). You can also check the status of your adapter in Windows by going to Network and Sharing Center, clicking on "Change Adapter Settings" and then right-clicking on the network adapter that is active. You will see the status for both IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, and if IPv6 is active, you'll see it there.

BTW, assuming you have IPv6 up and running on your router, you'll still also have an IPv4 address. So if you're just using one of the "What is My IP" websites, I've found that many of them continue to report only the IPv4 address unless you ask or search specifically for their utility that returns the IPv6 address as well. Indeed, there is a site called "What is My IPv6 IP Address" that will give you your IPv6 addy if you actually have one.

You shouldn't need to "force" anything. Some ISP's currently have really bad IPv6 implementations, or they are unstable or unreliable. Who is your ISP? That may tell others enough to give you some additional advice.

If I were you, I'd focus on the settings on the IPv6 tab in the GUI and play around with them until you get it activated. You may need to reboot your router a few times, but if your ISP really is utilizing IPv6, you should be able to get an address.

One other bit of unsolicited advice: That CISCO router you're using is only an 8x4 unit, which means that it won't handle the newer really higher speeds that have been rolled out by many of the larger ISPs (including TWC and Comcast). With 8 channels down, I believe your maximum download speed is no greater than 120 Mbps; you need a 16x4 cable modem to take advantage of speed above that (i.e., say 200 or 300 or greater). The 3295 is one of those combo units (cable modem, router, wireless, and voice adapter for VOIP) all rolled into one. You can do much better by getting your own router (if your ISP supports it, I'd recommend the Motorola/Arris SB6183 which supports the new tier of high speeds that 16 256QAM channels provide). At the very least, I assume you've disabled the routing functions and wireless on the 3295, and that you've also disabled the firewall and are running it in "Bridge" mode so that you don't have double-NATting going on (or that NAT is turned off on the Cisco). Just some additional thoughts...not that any of that will affect IPv6, but it will affect the way your 87U is allowed to perform.

 

[doczenith1]

Not to hijack the thread but the unsolicited advice has prompted a question. I have the 6141 modem with the 8 downstream channels and have had the Comcast 105/20 service for a while now. I typically get speedtest speeds of around 122/22 but recently in the past month or so I've been consistently getting 126/24. I know Comcast is known to bump the speeds for a particular speed tier without warning. Is it possible they have bumped the speeds in my market and my modem is now the bottleneck?

I've done some research (dslreports forums) and there is a distinct possibility that they have raised the speeds in my area to 150/20. Is it time for me to buy a new 16x4 modem? Thanks and sorry for hijacking.

 

[RMerlin]

Not to hijack the thread but the unsolicited advice has prompted a question. I have the 6141 modem with the 8 downstream channels and have had the Comcast 105/20 service for a while now. I typically get speedtest speeds of around 122/22 but recently in the past month or so I've been consistently getting 126/24. I know Comcast is known to bump the speeds for a particular speed tier without warning. Is it possible they have bumped the speeds in my market and my modem is now the bottleneck?

I've done some research (dslreports forums) and there is a distinct possibility that they have raised the speeds in my area to 150/20. Is it time for me to buy a new 16x4 modem? Thanks and sorry for hijacking.

The difference between your two tests is quite minimal, it could be just the typical margin of error related to congestion on either your local node or the test site.

Also at those speeds you want to make sure your router's NAT acceleration is enabled, as the pure CPU throughput of many MIPS-based routers is around those numbers - somewhere between 100 and 150, depending on your firewall configuration/enabled settings.

 

[doczenith1]

I have a RT-N66U and NAT Acceleration is enabled under LAN - Switch Control. You mention "CPU throughput of many MIPS-based routers is around those numbers - somewhere between 100 and 150". There is gigabit fiber coming to my neighborhood in the next few months, will this router not be able to handle those speeds or am I not understanding your comment correctly?

 

[RMerlin]

I have a RT-N66U and NAT Acceleration is enabled under LAN - Switch Control. You mention "CPU throughput of many MIPS-based routers is around those numbers - somewhere between 100 and 150". There is gigabit fiber coming to my neighborhood in the next few months, will this router not be able to handle those speeds or am I not understanding your comment correctly?

Various features will cause NAT acceleration to be disabled, such as QoS. The option under LAN is only to force it disabled, it does not reflect if the feature is actually enabled or not.

The RT-N66U should be able to get over 800 Mbps provided you make sure not to enable any of those features that can lead to NAT acceleration to get disabled. Full gigabit throughput is probably out of the question, unless using either an actual PC, or more specialized equipment that focuses on routing rather than extra features.

 

[jegesq]

Not to hijack the thread but the unsolicited advice has prompted a question. I have the 6141 modem with the 8 downstream channels and have had the Comcast 105/20 service for a while now. I typically get speedtest speeds of around 122/22 but recently in the past month or so I've been consistently getting 126/24. I know Comcast is known to bump the speeds for a particular speed tier without warning. Is it possible they have bumped the speeds in my market and my modem is now the bottleneck?

I've done some research (dslreports forums) and there is a distinct possibility that they have raised the speeds in my area to 150/20. Is it time for me to buy a new 16x4 modem? Thanks and sorry for hijacking.

Doc,

You don't mention where you are located, but with the impending TWC acquisition by Comcast, both have been upgrading their services in major metro areas like mad. If you're in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, or some other major metro area served by one or the other of these carriers, there's a good chance you've been upgraded to higher speeds. One sure sign that service has been upgraded to higher tiers is that your cable TV has been converted to all-digital (i.e., no more analog channels), because part of the 16-channel bonding requirement (or so I've been told) is that they must use that same bandwidth on their systems to allow them to moving to all QAM256, so they can bond those channels for internet service.

I suggest you call Comcast's technical support and ask. They should be able to tell you if your area has been upgraded recently and whether it now supports the 16-channel bonding required for speeds above 120 Mbps. I believe you'll also find that both TWC and Comcast have been pushing out both the Arris-Motorola SB6183 cable modems as well as the Arris DT1670A combo modem-router-wireless units, which are the only 16x4 cable modem units used by these two ISP's as far as I know (from reading both their own message forums and DSLReports). So if you have the higher service, there's a good chance you can just lease a new cable modem from them directly.

if you want buy a cable modem, there is really only one option at the moment: The Arris DT1670A combo unit is NOT available for retail, but is only provide to ISP's for lease. There is a Netgear combo unit which is capable of 16x4 (sorry, I forgot the model number) but no one ever has that thing in stock, so as a practical matter, the only real choice is the Arris Motorola SB6183 that Best Buy sells for $129.00. It's also available from others on Amazon, but at a huge markup, because of the scarcity of this model. Best Buy does stock them, you just have to check online to see which stores are carrying them and have a supply at any given moment.

On the subject of buying a new SB6183 (16x4) to replace your SB6141 (8x4) vs. leasing, even though I bought mine as soon as TWC upgraded my area to 300/20 (well, not right away...I did lease an Arris DG1670A for about two weeks but didn't like it), in hindsight I think it probably doesn't pay to buy and it's cheaper and easier to just lease one from your ISP. For example, TWC leases their cable modems for $4.00 a month. Buying one costs a minimum of $129, and with the sales tax and electronic recycling fees charged in California, I wound up paying over $140.

It doesn't take much effort to calculate that for what I paid, I could have just leased for 3 years, and then when the next and better modem comes out, just lease the new model all over again and not be stuck with an outdated modem. I would still have the cash in my pocket and at any point along the way, I could have exchanged it for something newer and better, or replaced it if it crapped out. Now if mine dies, I have to either buy a new one, or lease from my cable company. You know, buying isn't always the best option when you're dealing with a depreciating piece of equipment that will eventually either die or be replaced for something better. Too bad nobody leases ASUS routers....lol.

Oh, and I completely agree with Merlin that a 2 or 3 Mbps swing in upload/ download internet speed using an online speed test is not indicative of very much, if anything.

 

[doczenith1]

Various features will cause NAT acceleration to be disabled, such as QoS. The option under LAN is only to force it disabled, it does not reflect if the feature is actually enabled or not.

QOS is not enabled so I should be good there. Any other items to turn on/off for best throughput?

Doc,
You don't mention where you are located,

I'm in Lansing, MI

On the subject of buying a new SB6183 (16x4) to replace your SB6141 (8x4) vs. leasing, even though I bought mine as soon as TWC upgraded my area to 300/20 (well, not right away...I did lease an Arris DG1670A for about two weeks but didn't like it), in hindsight I think it probably doesn't pay to buy and it's cheaper and easier to just lease one from your ISP.

I leased for around 8 years and decided to purchase a modem 6 months ago. Comcast currently charges $9/month in my area so the $90 I spent on the modem will pay for itself in a few more months.

Oh, and I completely agree with Merlin that a 2 or 3 Mbps swing in upload/ download internet speed using an online speed test is not indicative of very much, if anything.

I agree that a 2 or 3 Mbps swing is not much but the key is that I've run literally hundreds of tests and the speed was always 122 +/- 2 and over the last month I've run 50 tests with a speed of 126 +/- 1 so perhaps they've made some changes to the lines in my neighborhood or at the CO but I still believe something has changed.

If things go as planned I'll have gigabit fiber from golightspeed.com in the next month or two so I will have a slightly used, outdated cable modem for sale. I have multiple friends who still have slower speed tiers that it will work fine for. My biggest concern was making sure my router was up to the task which it appears to be. My only wireless clients are phones and tablets so no need for ac at the moment (range is not an issue).

Thanks for the comments/knowledge. It is being stored away in my head and will be passed along to others as needed.

 

[jim769]

QOS is not enabled so I should be good there. Any other items to turn on/off for best throughput?




I'm in Lansing, MI




I leased for around 8 years and decided to purchase a modem 6 months ago. Comcast currently charges $9/month in my area so the $90 I spent on the modem will pay for itself in a few more months.




I agree that a 2 or 3 Mbps swing is not much but the key is that I've run literally hundreds of tests and the speed was always 122 +/- 2 and over the last month I've run 50 tests with a speed of 126 +/- 1 so perhaps they've made some changes to the lines in my neighborhood or at the CO but I still believe something has changed.

If things go as planned I'll have gigabit fiber from golightspeed.com in the next month or two so I will have a slightly used, outdated cable modem for sale. I have multiple friends who still have slower speed tiers that it will work fine for. My biggest concern was making sure my router was up to the task which it appears to be. My only wireless clients are phones and tablets so no need for ac at the moment (range is not an issue).

Thanks for the comments/knowledge. It is being stored away in my head and will be passed along to others as needed.

Comcast did make a change they bumped up there provisioning just a few mbps this was discussed in other forums we all noticed it but nobody really knows why. I use to get consistently 57/11 now its always 60/12.

 

[watusi]

8 channels is more than enough.

I recently upgraded form a 4-channel model to a SB6183 when Cox upgraded from 50mbit/sec to 100mbit/sec. I did not *quite* get the full potential throughput with 4 channels.

The practical difference was minimal. A 4-channel modem will nominally handle a 100mbit/sec connection. An 8-channel one with do it while dribbling a basketball and playing a banjo.

FYI, Cox has 12 channels active on my system.

I upgraded the modem to accommodate anticipated future bandwidth upgrades.

 

[jegesq]

8 channels is more than enough.

I recently upgraded form a 4-channel model to a SB6183 when Cox upgraded from 50mbit/sec to 100mbit/sec... .

Watusi:

Since you say you upgraded your modem to a SB6183 to "accommodate future anticipated bandwidth", I trust you realize that the SB6183 is a 16x4 cable modem, and not 8x4.

When you say "8 channels is more than enough" the question is "enough for what?" If you want speeds higher than 150 Mbps, an 8x4 cable modem will simply not get higher speeds. No way, no how.

And it's also important to upgrade to a newer modem for many people who are still using older 4x1 modems that are not DOCSIS 3.0: Without a DOCSIS 3.0 modem, your modem won't be IPv6 compliant.

In your case, the SB6183 is indeed for the future, because your particular area has not been provisioned yet for speeds any higher than 150Mbps download (and Cox probably doesn't offer speeds that high in any event...I'm talking about theoretical maximums based on bonding 8 channels). When you say your Cox system has "12 channels" you will appreciate that you have 8 channels download and 4 channels for upload, which again means your area is not yet provisioned for speeds any higher than 150. No cable system has provisioned 12 channels bonded for download only.

 

[watusi]

Watusi:
I trust you realize that the SB6183 is a 16x4 cable modem, and not 8x4.

Yup. I ordered it from Amazon and waited, rather than just getting an 8-channel model. Might as well prepare now.

When you say "8 channels is more than enough" the question is "enough for what?" If you want speeds higher than 150 Mbps, an 8x4 cable modem will simply not get higher speeds. No way, no how.

My previous modem was a 4x2. I was getting 100+Mbps after the Cox upgrade and prior to my modem upgrade. I could quite get the full 150mbps during speedboost.

My understanding is max (download, QAM256) theoretical capacity is ~ 30mbps/channel. 4x30=120, and so my actual experience is in line with my understanding.

8x30 = 240. 16x30 = 480.

When you say your Cox system has "12 channels" you will appreciate that you have 8 channels download and 4 channels for upload, which again means your area is not yet provisioned for speeds any higher than 150. No cable system has provisioned 12 channels bonded for download only.

Behold, the non-existent 12 channels. (See attached image.) 12 down, 3 up.

A 16x4 modem can use a total 20 channels, 16 down, 4 up. Note that up channels are an entirely different thing from down channels. For one, they are baseband channels.

BTW, I can clearly see when viewing real-time bandwidth that it is being throttled. The limitation is IP throttling, not the number of bonded channels. I don't know if there is some advantage to having more channels used than you need, I'd imagine in theory, at least, it might, when the system is congested. More channels to choose from, if their bonding software is smart enough.

 

[jegesq]

Well, that is quite weird that they're using 12 channels, but as you say, perhaps there's some advantage to having more channels available in the event their software can't properly deal with the congestion.

BTW, nice to see you've obviously got good SNR and zero correctables and uncorrectables (means your line is pretty much free of noise and bad or loose connections). Congratulations. But your power readings on the download channels do seem a bit on the low side. How is the stability of your signal? This is OT, but how's your cable tv?

Again, never seen a system provisioned with 12 256QAM channels download. Either 8 or 16, but never 12. Learn something every day.