Hoi zämä!
I have 10 Gbit/s with IB3 at home and would always have problems with Instagram. Always too slow, the stories were often buffering or didn’t load at all (but that worked with mobile data). I disabled IPv6 and suddenly everything works great! IPv6 reactivated and just having problems again.
I’m not sure if it’s a problem with the router or Instagram. Has this happened to anyone?
I can’t recall any problems with other websites.
Thank you 😉
thanks for the contribution
Unless you have very specific local problems, I would recommend going back to the Swisscom standard:
- IPv6 disabled
- Firewall setting to “strict”
In my opinion, deviating from the given (usually reasonable) standard is only worthwhile if you have a concrete reason for it and know exactly what you actually want to achieve.
“On apprend parfois plus d'une défaite que d'une victoire” — José Raúl Capablanca
That’s wrong. The default setting for IPv6 is active. And you should only deactivate it if you know exactly what you are doing. Not the other way around.
Instagram stories work perfectly for me via IPv6. I’m not aware of a general problem.
But let’s narrow down the real problem. Run a few online tests:
https://en.internet.nl/ (click on “Test your connection”)
Are there any problems reported there? If yes, which ones?
Have you tried turning it off and on again?
Hello!
Thank you everyone for the answers.
I also want to keep IPv6 enabled, but only when it works well.
The tests are all good:
It’s an iPhone 12 Pro with iOS 14.7.1. And the problems aren’t just with stories, also with pictures:
I scrolled, most of the photos showed up but one didn’t, I clicked on the profile and got this. With 5G it charges without problems.
@PowerMac wrote:
That’s wrong. The default setting for IPv6 is active. And you should only deactivate it if you know exactly what you are doing. Not the other way around.
Instagram stories work perfectly for me via IPv6. I’m not aware of a general problem.
But let’s narrow down the real problem. Run a few online tests:
https://en.internet.nl/ (click on “Test your connection”)
Are there any problems reported there? If yes, which ones?
I have a different opinion. You should only activate a protocol in a network (not just IPv6) if you know exactly what you want to use the protocol for (use case) and there is a corresponding concept behind it. At least that’s how it’s done in professional environments and what’s good there can’t be that bad.
Of course, you can take the approach of activating everything and then selectively deactivating it where there are problems (e.g. IPv6). On the other hand, I am of the opinion that by default only as little as is absolutely necessary should be activated and that all additional features are only activated when necessary.
@Pripahioff38 I only use Apple devices and I know that. Apple’s network stack is not always error-free. I was just visiting Germany at the weekend and had various minor charging problems with my iPhone 12 and iOS15 on the Telekom network. Pictures on websites sometimes worked via WiFi, sometimes not. I had no problems with the mobile network.
So, IPv6 is currently desirable, but it is also possible without it. There is no IPv6 in the mobile network. Therefore, leave it switched off on the router so that you don’t have any problems at the moment. Then just try it out in the next few weeks. Maybe it will work then.
My conclusion: either Apple’s network stack is not ok or the peering at Swisscom has a problem at the IPv6 level. Who knows and we won’t find out here. At least not me. 😉
@Pripahioff38 As the test results show, your connection is still using the 6th tunnel protocol, which has caused problems in the past due to the different MTU has. Whether this is on the client or on the Instagram server or somewhere in between would be exciting to narrow down further, but also technically very demanding. At best, Swisscom can switch you to native IPv6, I can well imagine that this will improve things somewhat. @JonasB is this possible in this case?
@hed The use case for IPv6 is called “Internet use”, the concept behind it was developed decades ago by people much smarter than either of us, and IPv6 has been used in professional environments for many years. Swisscom (and now practically all other ISPs) activates IPv6 by default on the routers without affecting end users. I don’t know of any case where disabling IPv6 actually solved any problem. At best it combats symptoms. If, as in this case, you have the opportunity to solve an IPv6-related problem together with a user, this is a great opportunity to keep up with the changing network landscape. You have already repeated ad nauseam here in the forum that you see this differently than practically all network experts.
Have you tried turning it off and on again?
The fact that IPv6 is absolutely necessary to address the address shortage of public addresses is undisputed, including by me. But if I activate IPv6 on the IB3, I don’t save a single public IPv4 address because the IB3 continues to be assigned a public IPv4 address in the WAN.
And why hardly any business customers (= professional environment) use IPv6 on the LAN when the experts agree so much? Many professional core services such as Enterprise SIP and LAN-I are also not available via IPv6.
Hello @hed I’m afraid I have to say that your argument is a bit flawed….
Not activating IPv6 on the customer side means that content providers have to use IPv4 in order to do this, I think you haven’t fully understood this part yet. In the sense of please put yourself on the opposite side…..
But if I activate IPv6 on the IB3, I don’t save a single public IPv4 address,
So, from my point of view, your statement is only partially correct, or simply wrong, you can’t just look at it from your point of view….
Swisscom Network Engineer IP+ AS3303,
Yes yes, the old chicken and egg discussion.
But as I said, Swisscom doesn’t even offer IPv6 in the professional area (e.g. Enterprise SIP or LAN interconnect). This means that even if customers want it, a switch is not possible.
If the need or If the need and therefore the pressure for IPv6 from customers and/or providers actually existed on a large scale, IPv4 would long ago only have a niche existence for ancient devices.
Hello @hed unfortunately I only partially agree with you here too. Because I believe that you are taking a view here that, in my opinion, is only limited and perhaps a little CH-biased.
Fortunately, as you know, “the Internet” is not just limited to Switzerland but allows users all over the world to communicate 😉
Who now, for example? In India a provider is bringing something completely new onto the market, so it makes perfect sense that he does it purely via IPv6 Public, so people who follow your pattern have no way of ever reaching them.
Of course your argument will now come, yes it’s his own fault that I don’t pay attention to it, but here too (as has usually been the case up to now), I disagree with you at this point….
I assume you also derive from this that your pattern should also apply to other Internet users. However, I suspect/hope that this isn’t the case, otherwise https://labs.apnic.net/dists/v6dcc.html wouldn’t really work voices,
But enough now
Greeting
Chris
Swisscom Network Engineer IP+ AS3303,
Yes, of course my view is primarily based on Switzerland, as I don’t know enough about the situation abroad.
No provider (not even in India) will rely on IPv6 only, but rather tunneling or 6to4 respectively. Use 4to6. If your linked list had a column with IPv6-only, then this column would be completely empty.
Dear @hed, unfortunately I would like to express my vote here again, as have already been discussed several times here, 6to4, 4to6, as well as various NAT, as well as 6rd (which I personally think I know very well) have some undesirable side effects , be it a total MTU reduced by an additional header, or NAT table size,…
So I think the most sensible solution, if available, is to have a native dual stack.
Unfortunately, products and their cores that were built and planned more than 10 or more years ago are not always that easy to convert to something more current…
Swisscom Network Engineer IP+ AS3303,
Thank you very much, dual stack of course definitely belongs in the list and, as you argue correctly, as the first choice. But my point wasn’t about pitting different procedures against each other, but about the fact that there is probably no one who will rely on v6-only but will always leave a back door to v4 open, at least for a few years to come.
It is well known that those who are declared dead live longer. I have been in the ICT business for a very long time, during this time v4 has been declared dead several times and there have been hardliners who have predicted everything imaginable if the world does not switch to v6 by year xy and v4 is switched off. History has taught me that, especially when it comes to this topic, eating is not as hot as cooking. In Switzerland alone, the industry has trained tens of thousands of IT specialists on IPv6, many of whom have since retired without ever having had any serious contact with IPv6 in practice outside of the lab (or at home with the IB3).
@hed What’s exciting is that you yourself say there shouldn’t be anyone who only relies on v6 (I know a few like that…) but you’re doing exactly that with v4, which is actually equally suboptimal , in the sense of it cuts you off from the rest.
I think it depends on which part of IT you work in. I myself would say that I have had to deal with v6 since the beginning of my network time, both in the lab and in production, and for this reason I have almost always done so at home. I admit that this hasn’t always been equally successful at home, but my setup at home has changed completely several times over the last 10 years or so.
Swisscom Network Engineer IP+ AS3303,
I have to clarify: My statement referred to the major customer sector in Switzerland. Over the last 20 years, I have worked with countless major customers from very different industries in the areas of ICT design, system integration/realization, network audits and 3rd level troubleshooting. IPv6 was not used productively by a single customer and I can only count on one hand the customers who mentioned IPv6 in the context of the evaluations, specifications and projects. In the very few cases where IPv6 was even an issue, it was simply a question of whether the equipment used (switches, routers, PBXs, communication servers, SBCs,…) was IPv6-ready, in case you needed it in the future would (topic of investment protection).
@hed hmmm I’m being quite cheeky now, so if you’ve had anything to do with design and had to make suggestions, it might be up to you to point out the advantages of IPv6?
Ps the around 37% that Google has on v6 traffic would be, according to what I read between the lines, more of a coincidence anyway since nobody needs v6, right?
According to your arguments, no one in Switzerland needs that anyway….
Swisscom Network Engineer IP+ AS3303,
The primary goal is to fulfill the customer’s specifications and not convince them of a technology that is not requested or not even mentioned in the specifications.
Additionally, there is no point in creating a design based on IPv6 if the system integrator in the areas where I have worked does not have IPv6-based WAN “lines” for the interconnection of customers’ branches or for connectivity to the cloud for data and VoIP Services offers. And that brings us back to the question of whether IPv6 is not offered because it is not requested by the customer or whether it is not requested by the customer because it is not offered by the provider. I am convinced that the first case is true. But the technology strategists, portfolio managers and marketing people certainly know this better.
I don’t know how the 37% IPv6 comes about, but I suspect that it is primarily the provider’s traffic from/to the Internet exchange nodes and the traffic between the providers. But I have no insight into these areas to be able to verify this.
