Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Networking Technology

Cisco Linksys Routers Still Don't Support IPv6 380

Posted by samzenpus
from the coming-soon dept.
Julie188 writes "It's 2011, IPv4 addresses are officially exhausted, and the world's largest router maker, Cisco, still doesn't support IPv6 in its best-selling line of Linksys wireless routers. This is true even for the new E4200 router released just last month (priced at $180). The company has promised to add IPv6 to the E4200 by the spring. But it has not been specific about if and how it will offer an IPv6 upgrade to the millions of other Linksys routers currently running in homes and small businesses."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cisco Linksys Routers Still Don't Support IPv6

Comments Filter:
  • by Endymion (12816) <slashdot...org@@@thoughtnoise...net> on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @06:46PM (#35155610) Homepage Journal

    Yet another reason I'm glad I've always recommended against Linksys to friends and family. Shoddy equipment in the past, and no preparation for the future now.

    • Re:wow (Score:5, Insightful)

      by icebike (68054) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @07:03PM (#35155788)

      Its not like they need new hardware to achieve ipv6.

      They need only offer a firmware upgrade.

      • by Hatta (162192)

        They don't even need to write the upgrade. Ship dd-wrt.

        • by kundziad (1198601)
          Sadly, dd-wrt doesn't support ipv6 out-of-the-box. And this is the only way in which I dare use it on my network equipment. After a careful look around, it looks like Apple ships the best wireless routers (working ipv6, super-easy linking routers via wireless or Ethernet to extend their range)...
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Culture20 (968837)

        Its not like they need new hardware to achieve blahblah. They need only offer an arglebargle flatucaster

        Translated for Joe six-pack and grandma. Expect a new line of linksys "now with ipv6!" because that was the plan all along.

      • by shentino (1139071)

        But why offer new firmware when they can rake in more money pushing new equipment?

    • Ok. I am a techno-idiot. Is my current linksys router, circa. 203-ish, going to be OK, or is it going to not work?
      • by Qubit (100461)

        Ok. I am a techno-idiot. Is my current linksys router, circa. 203-ish, going to be OK, or is it going to not work?

        Is that a model number or a year?

        • Re:wow (Score:5, Funny)

          by Cylix (55374) * on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @09:49PM (#35157654) Homepage Journal

          It was one of the original routers from 203AD. (well 203ADish).

          Because at the time there was not nearly a large enough base for IP based data transmissions they relied more heavily on humans. This router utilizes various symbols that were popular among the time to indicate direction. With a bit of a wheel you can turn the directions to various paths and thereby facilitate the routing of information or rather people.

          All in all, it is more like a road sign which can be shifted this way or that.

          To answer the question, I'm afraid there is no update to this model because at the time of it's conception there was no implementation of IPV6 or IPV4.

    • Still better than anything netgear makes ;).

    • by poetmatt (793785)

      nobody should use linksys. however, cisco small business products are excellent for friends and family, support everything under the sun, and are easily managed remotely, without being crazy expensive. WRVS4400 is one easy example [cisco.com] and it's $180 and comes with a realistic warranty, supports IPv6, IPS, and all the things that people believe they should get with consumer routers.

      meanwhile, buy shit products and you get shit support (aka E4200 for example). It's not a complicated concept. Just like when people

    • Re:wow (Score:5, Funny)

      by sexconker (1179573) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @08:20PM (#35156684)

      Yet another reason I'm glad I've always recommended against Linksys to friends and family. Shoddy equipment in the past, and no preparation for the future now.

      No preparation for the future now, but they'll be prepared for now in the future.
      Then they'll send that preparation back in time and everything will be hunky-dory.

      Haven't you seen the pointless brand awareness ads that CISCO runs, showing a classroom in China and one in the US teleconferencing?
      Or the giant out-side displays on opposite sides of the planet?

      Clearly these ads demonstrate CISCO's mastery of all things time and space. Not only is there 0 latency, the fucking sun is high in the sky in both places at the same fucking time. I wrote a detailed email to every public email address I could find for CISCO, but I only got one drone response. The drone asked me to clarify my concerns, to which I replied "YOUR FUCKING ADVERTISEMENTS SHOW A DISTURBING DISREGARD FOR THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF PHYSICS". Still waiting for a response.

      • by wcrowe (94389)

        To CareerBuilder.com: "FUCKING CHIMPANZEES CAN'T DRIVE!"

        To ETrade: "FUCKING BABIES CAN'T TALK LIKE THAT, LET ALONE DAY-TRADE!"

        To Frito Lay: "FUCKING DORITOS CAN'T BRING PEOPLE BACK FROM THE DEAD!"

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @06:47PM (#35155612)

    dd-wrt FTW

    • by rrossman2 (844318) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @06:50PM (#35155642)

      I second this. Plus every one I've installed DD-WRT on has ran multitudes more stable than the official firmwares have.

      • by Mr. DOS (1276020) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @07:32PM (#35156082)

        Indeed. In fact, there have been a number of instances where I've bought a Linksys router and installed DD-WRT not because I wanted the extra features but because I needed the extra stability. I've maintained for years (albeit with somewhat shrinking confidence) that Linksys' hardware is perfectly fine; it's just the firmware that makes their products suck.

        • by CAIMLAS (41445) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @11:42PM (#35158482) Homepage

          For the performance gain you see by going to dd-wrt, I've seen the same leap by going from dd-wrt to the tomato firmware. (The features in dd-wrt out pace the weak hardware in the devices, anyway).

          For a basic home wireless router, the hardware is pretty great. Don't ask it for much more, though. :)

          Considering what else is out there, I don't think I'll be buying any more Linksys products. The cost/benefit doesn't pan out. Nearly identical equipment is available for half as much, and better is available for less.

      • Linksys routers that will flash easily to DD-WRT are getting harder to come by.

        A few years ago, with firmware v.1, a flash took 5 minutes and came loaded with extra features (Bridging, VPN) but since v.3 I think, the images have to be smaller and less featured in order to fit on the tiny flash chips. Not only that but the procedure to do it now involves sacrificing a goat, banging your head against the wall and constantly reverting the firmware. I want the large flash back!
      • by vivek7006 (585218)
        Agreed. I was about to throw away WRT-160n in the garbage because it was so unstable. Then someone suggested DD-WRT and boy what a difference! Now its rock solid. Linksys routers are good hardware bit crappy firmware.
    • by morcego (260031)

      Or any of the others... i use openwrt, mostly because I hackit alot. All myimages are custom built.
      There are wrt firmwares around for all tastes and all kinds of users.

    • by (startx) (37027) <slashdot@unspunproducti o n s . com> on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @07:11PM (#35155872) Journal

      Except you need a version with at least 8MB flash for dd-wrt to support ipv6. I just spent weeks trying to get ipv6 to work on my WRT54GL with 4MB flash, but none of the official (or unofficial) builds I could find supported ipv6. I finally just broke down this afternoon and picked up an Asus RT-N16 with 32MB flash and am uploading DD-WRT as we speak.

    • by vlueboy (1799360)

      My DLINK 825 router supports v6 natively (enable tunnels till the ISP bites the bullet). ReFlashing is child's play. The problem is what seems like cumbersome tutorials for *WRT comparable to babying^W mastering a whole new Linux distro . IE: run this command to download ssl, this one to download v6, this one to chain scripts for your non-default firewall, that one to turn on the web GUI we all take for granted in all consumer routers... Please give it to me straight:

      Are there binaries with the web interf

      • by Mr. DOS (1276020)

        I would say DD-WRT from the research I've done, although it's the only one I've tried myself. OpenWRT seems to be the least turnkey (but most flexible), with Tomato apparently being decently user-friendly once you get it all set up, but fairly complex to install.

      • by jomcty (806483) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @07:59PM (#35156398)
        I find that TomatoUSB has the most polish of the mentioned firmwares. TomatoUSB is extremely stable, the QoS just works (tm) and IPv6 support is currently being integrated. I moved to it from dd-wrt over a year and a half ago and haven't looked back.
        • Another me too. Used DD-WRT for 6 to 12 months, and switched over to Tomato ever since (a year or two now) due to the dd-wrt security hole(s) on the WRT54GL.

          P2P apps seem to be the best way to test a router's stability :-)

    • by Rockoon (1252108)
      Unfortunately, my router is a Netgear WGT624 v3 and the dd-wrt database indicates that support is "NOT POSSIBLE" even though v4 is supported and v1 and v2 are "works in progress"
      • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @08:09PM (#35156534) Journal
        Unfortunately, when it comes to most consumer hardware, having the same model number means getting the same shape and color of plastic box around the circuit board(s). So long as doing so doesn't falsify any of the claims on the box grossly enough to be legally sticky, they can and do feel completely free to change the innards around, not infrequently without even a version or revision number bump.

        Board layout changes, totally different bootloader, entirely different SoC from a completely different vendor, Switch to VXworks and halve the available RAM, hey, if the web interface looks the same, its the same product, right?

        I'm definitely not bitter about this.
    • by luizd (716122)
      Also, there is OpenWRT. You can build a custom-made firmware with just what you need. You can fit ipv6 support and a web gui in 4MB of flash.
    • Most of the newest DD-WRT firmware doesn't have IPv6 support anymore (at least not on my wrt54g).. Reading the forums, it was removed to make room for other features. Annoying, since there is support for all sorts of crap in there.

    • by spongman (182339)

      tomato [polarcloud.com] for more win

  • What motivation would Cisco possibly have for providing firmware updates to old, cheap routers?

  • Comeon guys (Score:5, Funny)

    by Altus (1034) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @06:50PM (#35155646) Homepage

    Go easy on them, Cisco is such a small company and really there was no way they could have seen this coming.

    • It should be no big deal for them to license code from Tomato USB firmware or DD-WRT, both of which support IPv6 amongst many other really cool features. I don't buy routers that do not support DD-WRT, and I strongly prefer routers that support Tomato USB.

      Hopefully, failing that, Cisco can still add IPv6 support through a future firmware upgrade. I doubt anyone who just spent $180 on a router is going to buy a new one a year from now.

    • Don't they own a /8? I bet not supporting IPv6 will generate them a lot of revenue in the future renting ip addresses. I bet you they saw it coming.
  • Inexcusable (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ravenspear (756059) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @06:50PM (#35155660)

    Apple, Netgear, Dlink, etc are offering support for it.

    This is why no one wants to switch yet. If the users can't access your sites businesses are not going to judge it very cost effective to make them available on v6.

    • We're number 1 ... so we don't give a rat's ass.
    • by rwyoder (759998)

      Apple, Netgear, Dlink, etc are offering support for it.

      This is why no one wants to switch yet. If the users can't access your sites businesses are not going to judge it very cost effective to make them available on v6.

      It's not about *switching*.
      It is about getting dual-stack devices and dual-connectivity.
      Once set up this way, you don't even notice whether the website you just went to was IPv4 or IPv6.
      I've been set up this way for a number of years via a tunnel-broker.

  • Just run a Linux Distro on it like DD-WRT http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/IPv6

    The firmware it comes with is crappy anyway...

    • And you'll find that you are still on IPv4 and behind a two layer LSNAT system because your neighbors, ordinary consumers who could no more install DD-WRT than they could perform brain surgery on themselves, all just went out and bought brand-new IPv4-only Cisco routers.

  • by Tomun (144651)

    I have an old Linksys router and put OpenWRT on it. It supported ipv6 just fine with that firmware on it but ran out of disk space as soon as I tried to add qos support. I went back the the stupidly expensive Cisco branded router that's full of bugs..

  • meaning it's not going to connect on the big-wacky side of the interwackytubes thing. it's going to be on a 10 network or a 192.168 network and fed by NAT from some host that has bgrp to the real thing. non-story. now, Foundry or Cisco that can't work on IPv6, that's news. 2007 news.

    • by Hatta (162192)

      Getting rid of NAT is the whole reason to switch to IPv6. NAT is evil and should never happen. And before you say it, there is NO security benefit over a properly configured stateful firewall.

    • meaning it's not going to connect on the big-wacky side of the interwackytubes thing. it's going to be on a 10 network or a 192.168 network and fed by NAT from some host that has bgrp to the real thing.

      Forcing even more ISPs to use LSNAT, making life difficult for all their customers and delaying the transition even more for everybody.

  • Seriously, they sell this stuff here and KNOW that those that bought this chinese junk, will be forced to buy it again within another 2 years. Totally sick.
  • I run a v3 (or was it v4?) router w/ Tomato (http://www.polarcloud.com/tomato/) firmware. Given the nature of GPL firmwares, wouldn't it be possible just to enable IPv6 support in the router? Correct me if I am wrong, this should not be a hardware issue at all, right?

    Disappointing a company as large as Cisco to not enable support for IPv6 for the Linksys routers out there. Perhaps this is a sign for other router manufacturers like Buffalo to step up and be the first.

    • > Correct me if I am wrong, this should not be a hardware issue at all, right?

      It could. First, they may have been so stingy with memory that there's no room. Second, they may have made "unauthorized" upgrades difficult or impossible. Doesn't matter. though. 99.99% of the owners of these routers are ordinary consumers.

    • by Junta (36770)

      Tomato does not, but TomatoUSB does do IPv6.

  • DD-WRT [dd-wrt.com]

    As someone who wanted to test his home router with Comcast IPV6 testing, I was sorely disappointed with the firmware running on my router. Appearently the version I have USED to have some IPV6 support, but recent revs have either broken it, or stopped supporting it.

    Cisco doesn't care about Linksys brand. It was simply a marketing decision to buy the company to promote Corporate products. I won't buy Corporate Cisco equipment if I can ever help it. My company is replacing Cisco with much less expensive

    • by compro01 (777531)

      Problem with that is the micro and mini builds do not support IPv6, so anyone with only 2 or 4MB of flash is SOL. And that's a lot of linksys devices.

  • A slashdot member posted in 2005 [slashdot.org] (almost six years ago) that he was using a LinkSys router for an ipV6 trial.
    • > Okay, what am I missing here?

      The fact that some of their bottom of the line consumer routers still don't support IPv6 despite the fact that their more expensive products have supported it for years.

  • Irresponsible. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by A beautiful mind (821714) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @07:36PM (#35156120)
    This is really irresponsible on Cisco's part. I don't care about their monetary considerations, adding IPv6 support into their Linux derived routers wouldn't have been all that hard or costly for them.

    Their refusal to enable IPv6 support is having a bad effect on IPv6 adoption. I don't think most people realise how bad IPv4 exhaustion can be. IPv4 exhaustion puts a cap on internet growth, which in turn retards economic growth.

    Seriously Cisco, fuck you, just fuck you.
  • Sounds like a great way to sell more routers. Most people won't understand the details. If some Geek Squad goon says "you need to upgrade your router to support the New Internet(TM)." Most people will pony up the $50 and move on.

    Instead of spewing hate, we should be lauding Cisco on their capitalist business savvy. They are going to make loads of money selling people new gear that they otherwise wouldn't need.

  • My linksys E3000, with whatever factory firmware it had from oct 2010 has IPV6 functionality. (Tested using http://v6.testmyipv6.com/ and http://test-ipv6.com/faq_opera.html, and I can see ipv6 cisco and google sites).

    The e4200 might not, but that certainly doesn't mean none of them do.

  • Summary is false (Score:4, Informative)

    by TrancePhreak (576593) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @08:37PM (#35156906)
    I didn't RTFA, but I know the summary is inaccurate. I saw some other posts about others with Linksys routers with IPv6 and am here to tell you I am one too. I have a WRT610N and have been on IPv6 in the home for a couple years. Comcast turned on the IPv6 for me recently too.
  • by jcaplan (56979) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @11:02PM (#35158274) Journal
    I was surprised that TFA stated that the Netgear WNR1000 supported IPv6 since I keep my firmware up to date and have not noticed support. Turns out that the version with IPv6 support, 1.1.2.28, does not appear in the router firmware update page but can be found in the knowledge base at: http://kb.netgear.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/18631/kw/ipv6%20wnr1000 [netgear.com]
    It is a new update as of Feb 3, 2011 and its listed as being for the WNR1000v2 - no mention of the more recent v3. IPv6 compatibility is not mentioned on the product page or the spec sheet.
  • Too funny... (Score:5, Informative)

    by CAIMLAS (41445) on Wednesday February 09, 2011 @11:34PM (#35158422) Homepage

    This is too funny: you realize this is Cisco we're talking about here, right? The company that still requires obscene steps and wads of cash to get security updates for a paid-for product?

    I don't mean to flamebait, but seriously. Cisco is one of the most frustrating (large) companies to deal with in this regard. Smaller companies try to do the same things, but ultimately those behaviors turn people off their products. Why is Cisco still bannered about as the end-all, be-all for networking equipment, given that:

    * feature for feature, their switches are inferior in many ways to their competetors
    * Cisco products have less fabric provisioning than, say, HP switches, which cost a fraction as much (off the top of my head, 30% less fabric at 4x the cost)
    * Less usability built into the devices themselves (limited interface feature set). This applies to the 'home' routers, too: the Buffalo home routers are comparable to the Linksys (in some cases, 'identical'), cost less, and have better firmware. And lately, the radios have been better, too (for wireless).
    * Getting upgrades for an old Cisco is difficult and costly. "Old" usually means "not a couple years new and doesn't have a current service contract".

    I mean, seriously: it still costs how much for a Cisco PIX 50x? We're not even talking about something recent; 501s still sell, new, for over $150. It's no small wonder that small businesses buy things like Sonicwall devices given the alternative in 'name brand networking equipment'.

    You can argue that it's worth the money due to comprehensive support, lifetime this or that, or what have you. For most people, upon careful examination, the truth is that Cisco isn't a good value decision.

"The Street finds its own uses for technology." -- William Gibson

Working...