Ipv6 : No Internet Access

pharoer said:

Can you ping the router?
And usually you don't want to use IPv6. People who use IPv6 know what they are doing and why.

Click to expand...

pharoer said:

Can you ping the router?
And usually you don't want to use IPv6. People who use IPv6 know what they are doing and why.

Click to expand...

gangaskan said:

internally you will never need IPV6 if you do, i will be rather shocked.

Click to expand...

A15G said:

I've never experienced anything like this before.
I was just playing game/surfing the net like always and not touching with any internet options/wireless options or anything like that.

The internet out of nowhere started to be very slow, kinda like dial up. But worst, sometimes it wont even surf. Im on a wireless usb adapbter, Linksys RangePlus, Connected at 135.5Mbps or w/e the speed it. We have an Linksis G+ or so router i beleive and our server/internet provider is COX. I did notice a change in that IPv6, it says no internet access while IPv4 does. Is this the problem? And if so, why did it all of a sudden change? I didnt do anything but use the internet normally. It bothers me to use dial up when im paying for broadband/wireless.

What i've tried to do about it?
I reset'd my router. No luck.
Disable wireless adadpter>Re-enable it. No luck.
Un-install wireless adapter driver>re-install. No luck.


Is it the network that is making it like this? The router? Did I do something wrong? Im currently using Windows 7 Ultimate.

Let me know if any of you have experienced this, ASAP.

Click to expand...

pharoer said:

He will if his ISP uses IPv6. No more NAT with IPv6

Click to expand...

pharoer said:

Define "good router". And would they be able to translate between the two formats? transparently? I doubt it.

Click to expand...

ipv6.com said:

This document discusses issues with the specific form of IPv6-IPv4 protocol translation mechanism implemented by the Network Address Translator - Protocol Translator (NAT-PT) defined in RFC 2766. These issues are sufficiently serious that recommending RFC 2766 as a general purpose transition mechanism is no longer desirable, and this document recommends that the IETF should reclassify RFC 2766 from Proposed Standard to Historic status.

The objections to NAT-PT include all the problems caused by NAT, but they're even worse, because ALGs can't simply rewrite addresses since IPv4 addresses and IPv6 addresses have different sizes. IPv6 hosts that use NAT-PT must have their DNS requests passed through an ALG that translates IPv4 addresses into special IPv6 addresses that are routed to the NAT-PT device that performs the translation.

Click to expand...