For the last 4 or 5 years I have been using Hurricane Electric's IPv6 tunnel. It has been working fantastic and presents as a "native" IPv6 implementation to the Internet, giving me 20/20 at https://ipv6-test.com
Then, three things happened almost simultaneously... I got a new laptop, my Buffalo N600 started acting up, and my he-ipv6.service, although it started without error, failed to create a valid IPv6 connection. It turns out that the cable modem is blocking port 41, which Hurricane requires. It must have been something that they did with their modems over the holidays.
Over the last two months I have been working with the tech people at my ISP to get port 41 to open through their modem firewall. Their web-based Residential Gateway software allows me to set port forwarding on 41 to my tunnel's IPv4 server address, and shows that it is open. Testing the port shows that it is closed. Two different techs worked extensively to find out what the problem was but could not come to any conclusion.
My ISP is the only fiber optic game in town, and they are a good ISP. I have a 530 Mbps symmetrical connection and a static IP address for $70/m, which is, in my town, far above any other ISP in performance and below them in price, so I am not going anywhere even though they have NO plans to add native IPv6 capability to their network.
This morning I decided to try the Miredo package, which is a Teredo IPv6 tunnel through NATs, it runs in user space as a daemon and does not require an open port. I installed it using muon. It immediately created a link
And after it found a public service, which took about a minute, the IPv6 test site reported that IPv6 was still an IPv4 connection with a "fall over" to IPv6.
My FireFox 97 browser was the culprit.
I entered "about:config" into the URL bar and searched for
"filter-aaaa-on-v4" and turned the boolean setting to false.
That did it. Now, when I open the test site it shows that the preferred protocol is IPv6 with a fall-back to IPv4 in one second. It also gives my tunnel an 18/20 rating. Hurricane got a 20/20 rating.
How good is it? I haven't used it long enough to tell with any certainty how reliable it is, but I did do a speed test that compared the two protocols and the Miredo IPv6 downloaded at about half the rate that my IPv4 connection does. The Hurricane tunnel was as fast and sometimes faster than IPv4. But, Miredo is fast enough.
My search for an IPv6 tunnel is over.
Then, three things happened almost simultaneously... I got a new laptop, my Buffalo N600 started acting up, and my he-ipv6.service, although it started without error, failed to create a valid IPv6 connection. It turns out that the cable modem is blocking port 41, which Hurricane requires. It must have been something that they did with their modems over the holidays.
Over the last two months I have been working with the tech people at my ISP to get port 41 to open through their modem firewall. Their web-based Residential Gateway software allows me to set port forwarding on 41 to my tunnel's IPv4 server address, and shows that it is open. Testing the port shows that it is closed. Two different techs worked extensively to find out what the problem was but could not come to any conclusion.
My ISP is the only fiber optic game in town, and they are a good ISP. I have a 530 Mbps symmetrical connection and a static IP address for $70/m, which is, in my town, far above any other ISP in performance and below them in price, so I am not going anywhere even though they have NO plans to add native IPv6 capability to their network.
This morning I decided to try the Miredo package, which is a Teredo IPv6 tunnel through NATs, it runs in user space as a daemon and does not require an open port. I installed it using muon. It immediately created a link
Code:
teredo: flags=4305<UP,POINTOPOINT,RUNNING,NOARP,MULTICAST> mtu 1280 inet6 fe80::ffff:ffff:ffff prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link> inet6 fe80::2ab:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link> inet6 2001:0:c38c:xxxx:xxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx prefixlen 32 scopeid 0x0<global> unspec 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00 txqueuelen 500 (UNSPEC) RX packets 45263 bytes 42067728 (42.0 MB) RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 TX packets 71274 bytes 67978007 (67.9 MB) TX errors 0 dropped 2039 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
My FireFox 97 browser was the culprit.
I entered "about:config" into the URL bar and searched for
"filter-aaaa-on-v4" and turned the boolean setting to false.
That did it. Now, when I open the test site it shows that the preferred protocol is IPv6 with a fall-back to IPv4 in one second. It also gives my tunnel an 18/20 rating. Hurricane got a 20/20 rating.
How good is it? I haven't used it long enough to tell with any certainty how reliable it is, but I did do a speed test that compared the two protocols and the Miredo IPv6 downloaded at about half the rate that my IPv4 connection does. The Hurricane tunnel was as fast and sometimes faster than IPv4. But, Miredo is fast enough.
My search for an IPv6 tunnel is over.
Comment