IPv6 addresses given but no connection

[JohnC2]

Hi @zzz @De_Carabas and @jmarden sorry you are having a problem with your connection.

We will be happy to help you with this if you send us your details. You can contact us by clicking on my user name and selecting contact the mods.

Thanks
John

[smf22]

---

@zzz wrote:

So I'm back to where I was at the beginning (4 months ago) - no working IPv6.

---

I think it's worse than 'no working IPv6'. The routers used by @zzz @De_Carabas and @jmarden all get an IPv6 prefix, that they then dutifully advertise to the clients on their LANs. As todays clients prefer IPv6 over IPv4, the performance and delay seen when connecting to Internet sites is worse as the client will try IPv6, get no response and then use IPv4.

We have to hope that the applications on those clients have a well behaving Happy Eyeballs algorithm.

[andyduk]

Although I've not been able to get to the same level of detail as some of the guys on the forum, I can tell you that it impacts android devices in a big way, as unless you root the android device you cannot disable IPV6. As an example a number of apps BBC News, Facebook show a significant delay, when trying to update their information. With the BBC News app this means video and pictures take a while to display. If I disconnect from my BT Whole Home WiFi and use 4G or a VPN connection those images are displayed straight away. 

I have been be pushed between different BT Departments, and if it wasn't for this forum, I didn't not think this would be resolved. I have BT WholeHome WiFi the latest SuperHub and no means of disabling IPV6 on a number of my devices or home network.

It would be appreciated if someone beyond the first level desk, who has networking engineering experiances looks at this further. I've invested so much time and money in having the latest BT kit and troubleshooting it, and I just would love it to be resolved.

[zzz]

---

@smf22 wrote:

I think it's worse than 'no working IPv6'. The routers used by @zzz @De_Carabas and @jmarden all get an IPv6 prefix, that they then dutifully advertise to the clients on their LANs. As todays clients prefer IPv6 over IPv4, the performance and delay seen when connecting to Internet sites is worse as the client will try IPv6, get no response and then use IPv4.

---

Indeed, that's why I remove the default route from the IPv6 routing table for now. This way the devices in LAN get "Address Unreachable" right away and resort to IPv4. So at least I don't have delay issues... But this is a nasty hack, I would very much prefer a fully working IPv6 stack 🙂

[jmarden]

Exactly this and as I put in my PM to you, I suspect it's affecting the entire Bracknell region but going unreported as in the majority of cases people just don't realise that they have an issue.

[smf22]

@andyduk. Hopefully @JohnC2 will see you're also suffering and get you added to the list of affected users whose details they take.

[JohnC2]

Hi @andyduk Sorry I missed you were having problems too. 

We will be happy to help you with this if you send us your details. You can contact us by clicking on my user name and selecting contact the mods.

@jmarden and @zzz I've checked and we have received your details.  

Thanks
John

[De_Carabas]

After some months, suddenly a flurry of activity!  I've sent my details as well @JohnC2

I'm not in the country for the next couple of days to do any additional tests but I would be surprised if fixing this for others wouldn't also resolve it for me.

I can carry out any testing on Friday if needed.

[JohnC2]

Hi @De_Carabas @jmarden @zzz and @andyduk 

We believe that this issue issue has now been resolved. Please can you check for me and post back to let me know.

Cheers

John

[zzz]

Thanks a lot, @JohnC2 !!!

Everything is good now on my end:

# ping6 google.com
PING google.com (2a00:1450:4009:812::200e): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 2a00:1450:4009:812::200e: seq=0 ttl=55 time=8.913 ms
64 bytes from 2a00:1450:4009:812::200e: seq=1 ttl=55 time=8.888 ms
64 bytes from 2a00:1450:4009:812::200e: seq=2 ttl=55 time=9.130 ms
64 bytes from 2a00:1450:4009:812::200e: seq=3 ttl=55 time=8.868 ms
64 bytes from 2a00:1450:4009:812::200e: seq=4 ttl=55 time=9.093 ms
^C
--- google.com ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 5 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 8.868/8.978/9.130 ms

Cheers!