Cisco Linksys Routers Still Don't Support IPv6 380
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."
ipv6 support on Cisco/Linksys routers (Score:5, Informative)
dd-wrt FTW
Re:ipv6 support on Cisco/Linksys routers (Score:5, Informative)
I second this. Plus every one I've installed DD-WRT on has ran multitudes more stable than the official firmwares have.
Re:Comeon guys (Score:3, Informative)
>>>no way they could have seen this coming
Um.
What? I saw the IPv4 exhaustion coming two years ago, and I don't even work in this field. Cisco should have known years ahead and built-in the v6 code just like Microsoft did with Vista years ahead of schedule.
whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh.
Re:ipv6 support on Cisco/Linksys routers (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:ipv6 support on Cisco/Linksys routers (Score:5, Informative)
Summary is false (Score:4, Informative)
Re:ipv6 support on Cisco/Linksys routers (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. If you stick to the "stable" release, it's 2 years old and basically not really "stable" as it tries to be a one-size-fits-all release, usualy aimed at whatever 3 or 4 models the actual developers of the project have (thousands of people participate in forums but they are "testers").
There's no "stable" release. There are hundreds of undocumented "builds" which fix some things and break others. I tried about 10 different versions until I found one that worked with my WRT600N and gave me 300mbps (the other ones didn't enable the 5GHz radio).
Not only that. A buggy firmware screwed up my NVRAM and I had to take my router apart and reset it via serial port (which is fun and I enjoy doing when I have free time, just not to my main router RIGHT WHEN I NEED IT).
For every DD-WRT release you want to try, you have to make a 30/30/30 reset (with the router ON, hold reset - 30 seconds, unplug the router, 30 seconds, plug it back in, 30 seconds, release reset). You CAN'T save the config file cause it's not compatible between different builds (did you say you didn't like reconfig?). Every tutorial out there Just Works for whoever wrote it - years ago on an unspecified build, which of course isn't the one you're running and it's not going to work with yours either.
IPv6 is NOT supported out of the box (no, it doesn't matter if it comes built-in. The web config doesn't have a web page to set up the ipv6 stuff, and not even popular tunnel brokers, like HE and Sixxs Just Work. You have to make them work. Some things you do through web config, others through broken, ugly startup scripts.
Don't get me wrong, I love DD-WRT. I use it, but it's not something I'd recommend to the average person. It goes way beyond "reset to factory defaults", it crosses the "keep your soldering iron ready" level.
WNR1000 ipV6 support hard to find (Score:4, Informative)
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)
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.