Cisco Linksys Routers Still Don't Support IPv6

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."

Inexcusable

[ravenspear]

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.

Re:Why do we need IPv6?

[burne]

1993 called, reminding me to remind you that you must have missed their memo about the end of 'class C' and their new, shiny CIDR-plan.

Re:wow

[icebike]

Its not like they need new hardware to achieve ipv6.

They need only offer a firmware upgrade.

Re:Who cares?

[wampus]

You will when your ISP mandates IPv6. See how that works? There needs to be some reason for them to keep making new consumer gear.

Re:Who cares?

[LordNimon]

Considering most OS's out there support IPv6 (Vista, 7, Linux, Mac OS X) and most have it defaulted ON out of the box, why not add the capability?

Because it would cost Cisco money to do so, and they would get no financial benefit out of it. Those routers were never advertised with IPv6 support, so why should they be upgraded for free?

Re:ipv6 support on Cisco/Linksys routers

[Mr. DOS]

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.

Irresponsible.

[A beautiful mind]

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.

Re:Who cares?

[shish]

Cheap gadgets not being future-proof I can understand, but this is a $180 gadget not being 10-years-ago-proof...

Re:ipv6 support on Cisco/Linksys routers

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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.

Re:wow

[Culture20]

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.

Re:Who cares?

[camperdave]

When did people develop this sense of entitlement that every little cheap-ass consumer product they buy ought to be future-proof?

IPv6 has been out a lot longer than my router. It's not about being future-proof. It's about being present-proof.

Re:wow

[tqk]

Did you know, if they STILL DON'T support it that means they NEVER DID support it?

Read much? He didn't ask whether it supported it. He asked if it was still going to work. I strongly suspect IPv4 is going to be supported for a long time to come, and IPv6 routers will handle IPv4 for him for just as long.

Why do you ACs come here? To insult people on purpose? Bullies beat you up in recess today, and you felt the need to lash out at something, anything?

Re:Who cares?

[mysidia]

When did people develop this sense of entitlement that every little cheap-ass consumer product they buy ought to be future-proof?

We're not talking future-proof here. IPv6 is here, now, and yesterday.

Usually consumers have a reasonable expectation their product be present-proof. If it claims to be a router, it should meet current versions of the internet standards, in regards to node requirements for routers.

Re:Who cares?

[petermgreen]

It sounds like you are relying on accepting incoming connections to a ssh (or any other) server on a home connection. Initially your ISP will probably let you keep a public v4 IP for some token extra cost (or even free on request) but over time expect that cost to gradually ratchet up as the market value of v4 IPs increases. Or your ISP may decide to be nasty and say that to get a public v4 IP you have to upgrade to a significantly more expensive "buisness" connection.

If this service is important to you then you should be making enquiries with your ISP and/or making contingency plans sooner rather than later. It's always better to have plans for dealing with a problem than to have it thrust on you with no warning.