The real technical reason will probably remain hidden from this forum. But I find it weak that Swisscom made such a far-reaching change more or less quietly and did not consider it necessary to inform the customer (with a third-party router) that adjustments were necessary. . It’s not exactly glorious that supposedly switched off 6to4 gateways still deliver IPv6 - so the customer doesn’t even “simply” notice that something is different, but only through unnecessary means Troubleshooting…

I’m currently not having any luck with 7583 v7.29 (with gfast) either (so far). After I accidentally noticed the change as mentioned above (apps with IPv6 backend didn’t work, e.g. postfinance), I activated the settings according to post 58 today at 2:00 p.m. and no IPv6 arrived until 7:00 p.m. (I have to admit I wasn’t patient and rebooted/reconnected a few times). Then I disconnected the box from the DSL for about 20 minutes in the hope that this would trigger a new IPv4 and thus possibly IPv6 - without success.. now the box has been in operation again for 2 hours and so far no IPv6.. I hope the night brings still success… I’ll write if it works.

Show original language (German)

@wwe wrote:

But I find it weak that Swisscom made such a far-reaching change more or less quietly and did not consider it necessary to inform the customer (with a third-party router) that adjustments were necessary.


@wwe

It should actually be known and clear that when using third-party routers, the customer is not entitled to support and also bears the full risk. I assume that Swisscom does not pay much attention to such customers when making such changes, but rather primarily focuses on customers with IB.

Show original language (German)

@wwe wrote:

The real technical reason will probably remain hidden from this forum.. works.


I still hope we can find out. With or without official Swisscom help.


@wwe wrote:

But I find it weak that Swisscom made such a far-reaching change more or less quietly and did not consider it necessary to inform the customer (with a third-party router) that adjustments were necessary.

So. It’s not without reason/foreknowledge that I started this thread in May. So we already knew that Natives v6 could come at some point. What bothers me most about the whole thing is the router requirement. You are effectively forced to choose the monopolized product and not the one that is most personally suitable.

What’s not exactly glorious is that supposedly switched off 6to4 gateways still deliver IPv6 - so the customer doesn’t even “simply” notice that something is different but only through unnecessary troubleshooting.

I can’t get the 6RD prefix anymore. At least that’s what I tried last week. Here too, erratic behavior that is ignored. Passive aggressive like back then with the Netflix peering problem.


I’m currently not having any luck with 7583 v7.29 (with gfast) either (so far). After I accidentally noticed the change as mentioned above (apps with IPv6 backend didn’t work, e.g. postfinance), I activated the settings according to post 58 today at 2:00 p.m. and no IPv6 arrived until 7:00 p.m. (I have to admit I wasn’t patient and rebooted/reconnected a few times). Then I disconnected the box from the DSL for about 20 minutes in the hope that this would trigger a new IPv4 and thus possibly IPv6 - without success.. now the box has been in operation again for 2 hours and so far no IPv6.. I hope the night brings still success… I’ll write if it works.


Yes, keep us updated. 👍 Even though I fear that we will be served differently by different (BNG server?) infrastructure. Otherwise we wouldn’t have connections that work and others that never get IPv6. My second guess: Swisscom probably knows the cause by now. However, the solution still depends on an implementation from a third party (BNG Server?). I would definitely like to see a more active information policy here and not a maximally reserved one. @MichelB: Does the lab have some vague information that you can present here?

Show original language (German)

@hed wrote:

It should actually be known and clear that when using third-party routers, the customer is not entitled to support and also bears the full risk. I assume that Swisscom does not pay much attention to such customers when making such changes, but rather primarily focuses on customers with IB.

Dear @hed. We really appreciate your informative contributions in this form. You may have become a super user for a reason. I think the third-party router users know about the fact you mentioned several times. You have already defended the quasi-monopoly in this thread and have already cemented your stance on it several times. But now I ask you - in keeping with the motto “customers helping customers” - to leave the keyboard silent in the future if you cannot offer any substantial help with your repetitions. I have three pubescent trolls in my household that I could shoot at the moon every now and then. I don’t need to hear you trolling around in the form. Thank you for your understanding.

🧌

Show original language (German)

Hello @andiroid, it’s a shame, I was hoping for a yupi message that ipv6 is now running 😞.

Your question about CGNat:
Didn’t know there was such a super NAT. Apparently controlled by the ISP. According to a test CGNat is active for me. I don’t know if that’s true.

To your IP-v4 (85.x.y.z)
I’ve been getting a 188 address for years. And if this dual stack migration happens gradually, depending on the IP range? Swisscom has several. Just a naive idea…

Here are some ideas, nothing original:
- deactivate wlan / deactivate ipv6 / restart / re-activate
- use default DNS
- Backup FBox + reset + activate ipv6

If IPv6 is running after a reset, you can restore the backup. If it doesn’t work anymore, you know what to do: Spring cleaning (reset everything after reset)!

Here are some of my settings/devices, but it’s hardly important:
- DynDNS (selfhost.ch)
- VPN for remote access
- Fritz!Fon (Dect) with SIP provider
- Fritz repeater 1750

Show original language (German)

@Fredy-vo-Biu wrote:

Hello @andiroid, it’s a shame, I was hoping for a yupi message that ipv6 is now running 😞.

Your question about CGNat:
Didn’t know there was such a super NAT. Apparently controlled by the ISP. According to a test CGNat is active for me. I don’t know if that’s true.

Yes, I would have preferred to celebrate too… 🙁

If DynDNS works from outside, as far as I know you don’t have CG-NAT. You would also get a 10.x.y.z WAN IP.


Here are some of my settings/devices, but it’s hardly important:
- DynDNS (selfhost.ch)
- VPN for remote access
- Fritz!Fon (Dect) with SIP provider
- Fritz repeater 1750


I might do the backup/reset/restore/spring cleaning tour after Christmas as a bad weather program. Maybe that will change the unknown switch.

I also have your additional settings and features. Without a repeater, but with a second 7490 (and a temporary 7390) in a mesh network. But I don’t think that this would have a disruptive/significant influence on the WAN side.

Show original language (German)

@andiroid Although I no longer really have anything to do with cpe s for residential, I did some tests on one of the first native ipv6 RES staging connections (I think about 4 years ago…), this with a Cisco device.

And yes, this went smoothly…

Show original language (German)

Swisscom Network Engineer IP+ AS3303,
ASN3303


@ChristianEb wrote:

[…] I did some tests on one of the first native ipv6 RES staging connections (I think about 4 years ago…), this with a Cisco device.

And yes, this went smoothly…


@ChristianEb thank you for your feedback! 🙂 I don’t want to put unnecessary strain on your loyalty and I understand if you can’t or don’t want to go into every detail. But among the blind, the one-eyed man is king… And I’m more of a blind man at the moment. 🧑‍🦯

  • My interpretation of the native RES staging connections is: Apparently it is definitely possible to switch individual connections with IPv6 or not. So there are switches on the website that can be operated or forgotten so that v6 becomes active.
  • About the function with Cisco routers: Basically, third-party routers work very well in the RES network. Your Cisco Fladen and the plastic router (I-Büxe) from @Fredy-vo-Biu.
  • There may also be lists of compatible routers, and “you” know about the basic quirks of the boxes. Go/No-go.

Christian, do you have a gut feeling as to why certain F-Büxes get v6 in your network and some don’t. Schälterli for “you” or configuration for “us”?

🙋‍♂️

Show original language (German)

My fry got an IPv6 and a /56 prefix at 4:15 a.m. - about 6 hours after the last manual “reconnect” 😁

So it is probably possible to get native IPv6 without a SC router, the settings of @Fredy-vo-Biu are correct - thank you very much! You have to be patient, at some point it will work.

@hed

It should actually be known and clear that when using third-party routers, the customer is not entitled to support and also bears the full risk.

This is the attitude that Swisscom should urgently abandon. In this forum and also on the hotline, the hackneyed phrase “no support for third-party routers” is constantly harped on - it’s not about the support for the routers, but rather about the support for your own infrastructure, which is completely intransparent for the customer functions. I expect a reputable provider to test (selected) third-party devices and provide instructions for them. And if the customer uses such a device, they also receive reasonable support for the Swisscom backend!

@Android

Well. It’s not without reason/foreknowledge that I started this thread in May. So we already knew that Natives v6 could come at some point.

Now I see that too… but I have to admit that even though I’m technically savvy and not averse to IPv6, I haven’t noticed the migration yet. And yesterday I got a 6to4 prefix even after rebooting the Fritzbox (but it didn’t work test-ipv6.com said no IPv6 - the networks are probably no longer accessible from the Internet). That’s the point that annoys me - Swisscom could inform all customers in general (major changes do involve a risk, even if you think you have it under control, it doesn’t hurt to let customers know) and especially if you notice that customers You can continue to use the obsolete infrastructure and send out a personalized email or similar - the effort required to read out and write to customers takes just a few hours.

Schälterli for “you” or configuration for “us”?

After my FB got an IPv6 after 5-12 hours (depending on what you assume as the start), the problem is clearly in the SC backend. Presumably the fact that the CPE wants to use native IPv6 has to be “distributed” in the backend first .. Happens often in larger environments (Azure/M365) - but it involves functions that can be switched on/off. I would expect a basic function like IPv6 to be available at the same time as IPv4 - at the latest when it has been implemented for everyone.

Show original language (German)

@andiroid wrote:


@ChristianEb wrote:

[…] I did some tests on one of the first native ipv6 RES staging connections (I think about 4 years ago…), this with a Cisco device.

And yes, this went smoothly…


@ChristianEb thank you for your feedback! 🙂 I don’t want to put unnecessary strain on your loyalty and I understand if you can’t or don’t want to go into every detail. But among the blind, the one-eyed man is king… And I’m more of a blind man at the moment. 🧑‍🦯

  • My interpretation of the native RES staging connections is: Apparently it is definitely possible to switch individual connections with IPv6 or not. So there are switches on the website that can be operated or forgotten so that v6 becomes active.
  • About the function with Cisco routers: Basically, third-party routers work very well in the RES network. Your Cisco Fladen and the plastic router (I-Büxe) from @Fredy-vo-Biu.
  • There may also be lists of compatible routers, and “you” know about the basic quirks of the boxes. Go/No-go.

Christian, do you have a gut feeling as to why certain F-Büxes get v6 in your network and some don’t. Schälterli for “you” or configuration for “us”?

🙋‍♂️


As I said, I’m not that close to these CPE things, but I thought I knew that a pairing for v4 and its reference must be made, in the sense that dhcp option v4 must be running. Then v6 should be problem-free, or that’s how it was in my tests (years ago)

Show original language (German)

Swisscom Network Engineer IP+ AS3303,
ASN3303

@andiroid This isn’t about loyalty, this is more about the fact that I personally think I’ve read some nonsensical/false statements, which I interpret more as “setting the mood”…

Good luck with testing…

Show original language (German)

Swisscom Network Engineer IP+ AS3303,
ASN3303

As long as I was involved, we never did anything that put third-party routers at a disadvantage. But we never did anything to test these things. There was no staff for that and you can’t know everything. It’s simply irrelevant given the quantity. And if you want to make something yourself, you just have to know what you’re doing.

Since it is proven to work with the FB, the problems are more local. The BNGs and the settings are the same everywhere.

Show original language (German)

@andiroid, although I think that your statements don’t always capture the tone I prefer to read, I’m happy to explain here how I made a WAN capture


@andiroid wrote:


@hed wrote:

I have now also made a packet dump! Another wonderful feature of the F-Büxe! Can the I-buses do that too?


@andiroid

No, the IB can’t do that and doesn’t have to be able to do it. The few people who may need this can also easily record with Wireshark on their PC.


Then please explain to me how to do a packet dump on the WAN interface on the PC. Troll.


I took one switch each of the rspan/mirroring/erspan/… Untested and connected the WAN int, of course you have to put a little effort into pairing stories to make sure the mac addr is the right one, but this isn’t really rocket science,

Then you take another switch int and put it in the same vlan on the switch…

Of course, not every access technology is equally simple, but…

Have fun trying…

Kindest

Chris

Show original language (German)

Swisscom Network Engineer IP+ AS3303,
ASN3303

Dear Community.

I would like to thank you very much for the lively discussion, feedback and opinions. And there are so many of them… (OT: Does anyone still know the black and orange Grifitti that decorated the ugly SBB building in Herrliberg for many years?)

I’m trying to address a few comments here regarding my Fritzbox problem and will address the side branches in separate postings.

This isn’t about loyalty, this is more about the fact that I personally think I’ve read some nonsensical/false statements, which I interpret more as “setting the mood”…

@ChristianEb: The comment about loyalty was aimed at: “Tell me what you can tell as an official employee, I respect if you are not allowed to explain every detail.” As I said, I really appreciate that someone from the provider side comes forward who can possibly verify or, if necessary, falsify certain assumptions. And I try to achieve my goal using different linguistic means. I’m sorry if you find my posts to be just “mood-mongering”. My primary concern is to find out whether the network or the router has a configuration error. And for a moment in the last few days I felt like I wasn’t being taken entirely seriously. Not from you, mind you. I really miss the container in which the nerds can place their concerns. The economic consideration is quite clear to me. “You” can’t afford a personal massage. But there is certainly a practical and economical middle way. Oops, I digress. But it still has something to do with my original problem.

As long as I was involved, we never did anything that disadvantaged third-party routers. But we never did anything to test these things.

@5018: How do the lists of “compatible” or “approved” routers come about? A long time ago I replaced the 7390 with the 7490 because the old part supported certain new DSL features.

And if you want to make something yourself, you just have to know what you’re doing.

Since it is proven to work with the FB, the problems are more local. The BNGs and the settings are the same everywhere.

If certain boxes get a prefix after 30 minutes, others after 6 hours, and others never get a prefix, I’m really not sure whether that’s true. But yes: I cannot rule out a configuration error / side effect in my router configuration. But I don’t understand everything yet. For example, that the frit acknowledges the v6 attempt with “No response from the DHCPv6 server”. In both cases, where it worked and in my case, where I still can’t get a prefix. Confusing.

Without a quote: The fact that I got a prefix within seconds with 6RD and not instantaneously with native v6 is explained by the technology. v6 is packed into v4 packages and sent to a dedicated server. And with v6, v6 packets first have to be sent “somewhere”. To someone who can’t seem to get along with DHCPv6 packets. With my limited knowledge of networks, the different behavior is somewhat consistent, but not completely explainable. That’s why there: Confusing.

As I said, I’m not that close to these CPE things, but I thought I knew that a pairing for v4 and its reference must be made, in the sense that dhcp option v4 must be running. Then v6 should be problem-free, or that’s how it was in my tests (years ago)

@ChristianEb: Thanks for that too. I think I found this in the Wireshark-compatible packet recording of the WAN interface. But I will look at it again and repeat it if necessary. But I have to stick my head in the sun today. I hope you’re not sitting in some boring piquet or war room and can do that when the time comes.

Show original language (German)

@ChristianEb wrote:

@andiroid, although I think that your statements don’t always capture the tone I prefer to read, I’m happy to explain here how I made a WAN capture

Aha. 🙂 I actually only expected that this would be possible with a network and protocol sniffer that was expensive for a small car.

@hed: I am hereby officially collecting this shared troll again. It is possible and my claim was wrong. Äxgüse, just give it back. 🧌 Thank you.


I took a switch of rspan/mirroring/erspan/… Untested and connected the WAN int, of course you have to put a little effort into pairing stories to ensure that the mac addr is the right one, but this isn’t really rocket science ,

Then you take another switch int and put it in the same vlan on the switch…

Of course, not every access technology is equally simple, but…

Have fun trying…

@ChristianEb: An exciting story. Even if I admit that I don’t understand everything in detail and can’t immediately understand it. Based on the googled images, I imagine that you have converted two “media converters” from DSL to ETH and back to DSL. With glass and a conventional media converter, this would be easily conceivable. But we’ve now gone quite off-topic… Even if these topics are actually of little help to the average customer and the average nerd, they show that there are certainly interesting discussion partners with in-depth specialist knowledge to be found “over there”. With this in mind, I would like to see many more comments from you and your colleagues!

🙋‍♂️

Show original language (German)

@andiroid @hed and the others, I hope I haven’t forgotten anyone, otherwise apologies…

For DSL I have a media converter based on an SFP, or a simple DSL bridge which has an Ethernet port is sufficient, if the FB is also connected via DSL, the further interface needs a bridge which “behaves” like a DSLAM, that is Already included in a lot of HW, at least the stuff that’s hanging around in my private life…

Point about warroom/pickett, luckily it doesn’t start until tomorrow, so I still hope to have a not too intense week…

Now I’m trying to get more energy from the family.

Thanks for the exciting conversation.

Greeting

Chris

Show original language (German)

Swisscom Network Engineer IP+ AS3303,
ASN3303

@andiroid There are few people who are really strenuous, but oh well. The list of routers is not operated by the residential segment. So it is not checked whether the services work. When the technology is tested, it only checks whether the routers with a certain firmware do not cause any problems in the access network. If a router with untested firmware is used by the customer (be it a private customer, a corporate customer or another service provider) and it disrupts the network, for example (as the FB 7390 did, for example) or a private customer uses one that is not XGS-capable If the router uses an XGS-PON connection, then it is liable for the damage.

The Internet boxes must also prove in the respective firmware development that they do not cause any problems in the access network. Conclusion: the list is often over-interpreted here in the forum.

Show original language (German)

@ChristianEb

Thanks, everything is clear. If I ever have to take a measurement with Wireshark, I do it a little differently and more simply. Basically, everything that is of interest in terms of protocol is also available on the Ethernet LAN side, with the exception of the WLAN. But if I switch off the IB’s WLAN and only use the WB’s, the WLAN traffic ultimately runs to the IB via Ethernet.

I only connect an uplink to the switch on the IB itself, from which everything else is distributed. One port of the switch is permanently switched as a mirror port on the uplink to the IB. If I now want to make a protocol recording with Wireshark, I just have to connect the laptop with Wireshark to the mirror port of the switch and I can see the entire WAN traffic (except the control traffic from the provider) on the LAN side cut along.

Show original language (German)

@hed good and frequently seen way for LAN traffic, but as you write you have to dig a little deeper into the “box of tricks” for WAN traffic….

Have a nice evening, greetings

Chris

Show original language (German)

Swisscom Network Engineer IP+ AS3303,
ASN3303