IPv4 and IPv6 addresses in FTTH tmobile and orange, CG-NAT, ONT, PPPoE sessions

Hi, from what I've read tmobile after FTTH by default comes out with an IPv4 address which is behind the CG-NAT identical to LTE, although I'm not sure about this because I saw a post by a user who had a public address on the WAN of their router. What does tmobile's own ONT look like previously according to the forum they didn't have a router with ONT then they gave ONT separately. What IPv6 and IPv4 addresses do I get out of the FTTH orange link? Opinions are divided and it depends on the prefix next to the username /ipv6 among others or on setting up two PPPoE sessions to get two public IPv6 and IPv4 addresses which is supposedly rammed by some machine in orange.

marcinfx585 wrote:

what I have read is tmobile after FTTH defaults to an IPv4 address which is behind the CG-NAT identical to LTE

.
It is as you write. Apparently with the current user dissatisfaction they are doing some testing with a public paid 10£ IPv4 address.

marcinfx585 wrote:

How does tmobile's own ONT look like previously according to the forum they didn't have a router with ONT then they gave ONT separately.

From talking to Orange technicians (TM probably has the most installations on their infrastructure) it seems that with their own ONT it is crummy. I've even asked a colleague if he would install an ONT for me or my customers if needed, he says they have no way of doing it. Orange gets pre-configured devices from TM and hands these over to the technicians. The technicians are not allowed to make any changes to either the configuration or the devices, because they just get a pre-packed package. Even in the event of problems or errors in the configuration of the equipment, they cannot correct them locally, as they have no data to manage. In such a situation they just connect, configure the VLANYs and BSAs to TM and only you can remotely change the hardware configurations. Apparently it sometimes takes up to two weeks of pushing before the TM systems and the router get along and services start. If the technician's package includes an ONT and a router, you win, if the router alone, you know how it is.

marcinfx585 wrote:

What IPv6 and IPv4 addresses am I getting out of the orange FTTH link?

.
On their equipment, if you patch PPPoE sessions to IPv6, you get the whole pool of /64 or /48 (not sure what it depends on). IPv4 are then reachable via DS-LITE with AFTR. This is their default configuration, and it's hard to replicate on other manufacturer's hardware, because it usually lacks AFTR address download via DHCPv6. There is only a static entry option.
If you do PPPoE over IPv4 you get one public IPv4 address and no IPv6 access.

marcinfx585 wrote:

two PPPoE sessions to get two public IPv6 addresses and IPv4 which is supposedly rammed by some automaton in orange.

.
I have tested and currently both sessions are working simultaneously (username with /ipv6 suffix and without suffix). However, there is a problem in the bitrates. I don't know what it's due to, whether it's the hardware and performance limitations of my soapbox, or the OLT or PPP hub configuration. When there are two sessions, the bit rate on IPv4 is about 40% of that on a single session. When downloading a large file it increases over time to about 80% of that on a single session. At clients, for obvious reasons, I haven't done this kind of play with testing and I've only had the light myself for a month and only when I have some enterprise router with debugging at my disposal will I perhaps see what is limiting these transfers so much.

IC_Current wrote:

.
If the package for the technician will be ONT and router then you win, if the router alone, then you know how it is.

I may be a new T-Mobile customer but I think it's worth making an addendum to the contract for ONT router so they don't forget.
I guessed that orange technicians get already configured equipment from T-Mobile.
Maybe add to the addendum that they give the management details in the contract?
By the way, I would already prefer to get the ONT alone from T-Mobile without the router but I think they would not offer me such a contract with my own router.

In general, I don't need public IPv6 or IPv4 addresses so I prefer to be behind T-Mobile's CG-NAT, pity that it's only after IPv4 because in orange after LTE I also have IPv6 behind NAT.
What time does the IPv4 address change in T-Mobile after FTTH? I'm guessing that their primitive router will have options to set up/disconnect PPPoE sessions because my IP address should then change?
If I sign the contract at the showroom will I get a login and password for PPPoE on the contract because supposedly that's what they send via SMS but I'm not going to give them my tel number or email?
How is the address assignment there with CG-NAT?

Underestimated bandwidth with two PPPoE sessions do you have with hardware flow offloading enabled?

marcinfx585 wrote:

after LTE I also have IPv6 behind NAT.

.
There is no NAT there. That's why IPv6 was created not to do NAT+PAT. There is public IPv6 on every host, only communication from outside is blocked on the firewall for the safety of users.

marcinfx585 wrote:

with hardware flow offloading enabled?

.
Yes. The soapboxes I have and have tested on them do not have the option to disable hardware acceleration. But after I wrote the previous post I did another test and still different results - on one test server as I wrote before, on another about 90% against PPPoEv4 only and on the Orange test server .... 1,5Mbps with a gigabit connection. So I guess it's an issue on the operator's side and not the hardware, but I'm protesting on something specific anyway.

marcinfx585 wrote:

It's worth doing an addendum to the contract for ONT

.
I don't know about TM, but in Orange there is officially no ONT for individuals and they won't indicate this to you when you sign the contract. Only if you make an agreement with the technician before installation, and apparently during the contract, if you order a paid service "change of location of router installation" it is also possible to agree with the technician ONT.

marcinfx585 wrote:

Maybe add the management details to the annex as well?

.
In TM you supposedly get them from the consultant after installation.

marcinfx585 wrote:

with tmobile without a router

.
Not worth it. You don't pay a premium for their equipment like in O, so it's worth having in the cupboard in case your toys fail, or for, say, the need to test the service.

However, now out of curiosity I am comparing O and TM for my address and with a 300Mbps connection TM 5 zeta cheaper but with a 900Mbps connection it is already O cheaper by 5 zeta. At O there is a public IP. Comparison on the assumption that in O I will give up their router and not pay the extra 5£.

IC_Current wrote:

.
There is no NAT there. That's what IPv6 was created for, not to do NAT+PAT. There is public IPv6 on every host, only communication from outside for user security is blocked on the firewall.

Orange on LTE after IPv6 is CLAT+NAT64+DNS-DualStack, interesting presentation as to Orange's IPv6 deployment for 37 minutes - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0G5PTtZjTM

I guess it's from the technician that I'll get the management data after the installation, because the consultant in the showroom is rather from persuading contracts?

You're right that you can keep that router of theirs in the cupboard in case your equipment fails.

T-Mobile, compared to Orange, has extremely long 24 month contracts and no perpetual contracts - or I don't know about something.
Normally I would take the standard unlimited contract.

marcinfx585 wrote:

IPv6 is CLAT+NAT64+DNS-DualStack,

.
But there is no NAT for native IPv6 addresses there, only IPv4 is tunneled inside IPv6 packets and native to the public pool.

marcinfx585 wrote:

Tmobile compared to orange has extremely long 24 month contracts and no unlimited contracts - or I don't know about something.

I look at the websites of the various operators quite often. There they change options and prices literally every fortnight. E.g. now in O when buying via the Internet there is a 20 PLN discount, but a few days ago there was no discount and a fortnight ago they raised the base prices by 5 PLN. In TM the 900Mbps option has also become more expensive in the last month.

marcinfx585 wrote:

It is probably from the technician that I will get the management data after installation

.
In O you will officially get the data for PPPoE once the service is up and running, documents approved and milled in the system. Yes on average it takes 10 days and then the data is in your My Orange account or sent to SMS by the consultant.

IC_Current wrote:

marcinfx585 wrote:

After LTE, I also have IPv6 behind NAT.

There is no NAT there. That's what IPv6 was created for, not to do NAT+PAT. There is public IPv6 on every host, only communication from outside for user security is blocked on the firewall.

marcinfx585 wrote:

It is worth doing an addendum to the ONT contract.

.
I don't know about TM, but in Orange there is officially no ONT for individuals and they won't indicate this to you when you sign the contract. Only if you make an agreement with the technician before installation, and supposedly during the contract, if you order a paid service "change of location of router installation", it is also possible to agree with the technician ONT.

.
In Orange on the mobile network after 5G/LTE you have NAT64.
Let's not mislead someone reading this.
Source:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/reg...tings/ipv6-at-orange-poland-tomasz-kossut.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0G5PTtZjTM

You show sources and you don't know how to use them.
There is NO NAT in IPv6. This protocol is native.

In IPv4 there is DS-Lite with AFTR addresses assigned by DNS multicast for a given geographical area. I have configured this and know how it works, there are even AFTR addresses to be found as the client does not have the option to fetch them via DNS.
Just read up on what AFTR is, DS-Lite and what it has to do with NAT64.

IC_Current wrote:

.
From talking to Orange technicians (TM seems to have the most installations on their infrastructure), it seems to be crumbling with their own ONT. I've even asked a colleague if he would install an ONT for me or my customers if needed, he says they have no way of doing it. Orange gets pre-configured devices from TM and hands these over to the technicians. The technicians are not allowed to make any changes to either the configuration or the devices, because they just get the packaged package. Even in the event of problems or errors in the configuration of the equipment, they cannot correct them locally, as they have no data to manage. In such a situation they just connect, configure the VLANS and BSAs to TM and only you can remotely change the hardware configurations. Apparently it sometimes takes up to two weeks of pushing before the TM systems and the router get along and services start. If the package for the technician includes an ONT and a router, you win, if it's just the router, you know how it is.

I will write for someone who will be reading this thread that in T-Mobile Fibre:
1. we have the details for PPPoE in our telecom contract.
You get them as soon as you sign the contract at the showroom except that they want you to give your phone number so that a technician can contact you - for me this is nonsense but so much for their stupid requirements. If anyone has managed to get past this like giving them an email address then please write.
Someone might ask why this is nonsense? Because I've ordered from Vectra more than once by just giving my address alone, why would anyone want to advertise and call out their phone number?

To make it funnier their PPPoE password has 10 characters only upper and lower case letters.
2. in T-Mobile fibre optic handover protocol we have a field for "modem" and for ONT terminal.
People from another forum wrote that if we want an external ONT we should inform the technician beforehand, we are not interested in his translation, it has to be ONT or let him not even come with this electro-junk with integrated ONT.

The login to PPPoE itself is the phone number that T-Mobile itself provides, i.e.:
48998xxxxxxxx and that ridiculous 10-character password from the contract, upper and lower case.
Where did they get the idea for such weak passwords?

marcinfx585 wrote:

People from another forum wrote that if you want an external ONT you should inform the technician beforehand, you are not interested in his translation, it has to be an ONT or let him not even come with this electrical junk with integrated ONT.

Good to know

marcinfx585 wrote:

48998xxxxxxxx and those ridiculous 10 character passwords from the contract, upper and lower case.
Why do they have such weak passwords?

.
Because everything flies on PAP or CHAP anyway and that's either an open password or encryption to crack on an old laptop. Besides, everything flies on the network anyway, where no one has access between Router and Hub except the operator's people. Thirdly, the world won't collapse anyway, if someone takes over your password they will at most get your service parameters and you won't log in. The operator will immediately know who and from which device logs in to the concentrator using your password, so they will quickly catch the offender.

IC_Current wrote:

.
Because everything flies over PAP or CHAP anyway and that's either an open password or encryption to crack on an old laptop. Besides, everything flies on the network anyway, where no one has access between Router and Hub except the operator's people. Thirdly, the world won't collapse anyway, if someone takes over your password they will at most get your service parameters and you won't log in. The operator will immediately know who and from which device logs in to the concentrator with your password, so they will quickly catch the offender.

.
Also when it comes to T-Mobile fibre on Orange connections then ONT we will get right away if we mention it to the technician, don't be surprised if it is from Ukraine .
Besides that a lot of vulnerabilities by old packages and also in the Linux kernel has this their unmanageable or requiring some ridiculous t-mobile app to work.
Good thing such a monster is behind CG-NAT.

marcinfx585 wrote:

Well that such a monstrosity is behind the CG-NAT.

.
I too much prefer the device that suits me and not the operator. But increasingly there is a problem with that, and the Net Neutrality and Device Neutrality Directive is only on paper sometimes.
On the other hand, as for CG-NAT. That should be regulated by law. Whoever wants a private IP gets a private one, whoever wants a public one gets a public one (possibly for a small surcharge), and if the operator does not have a sufficient pool of public IPv4, it should be obliged to allocate IPv6 free of charge on request. Now such configuration monstrosities are created, sometimes even three or four times NATed. But to implement IPv6 on a large scale in the USA, Germany or France is "impossible" in our country.

IC_Current wrote:

marcinfx585 wrote:

Good that such a monster is behind the CG-NAT.

I too much prefer the device that suits me and not the operator. But increasingly there is a problem with that, and the Net Neutrality and Device Neutrality Directive is only on paper sometimes.
On the other hand, as for CG-NAT. That should be regulated by law. Whoever wants a private IP gets a private one, whoever wants a public one gets a public one (possibly for a small surcharge), and if the operator does not have a sufficient pool of public IPv4, it should be obliged to allocate IPv6 free of charge on request. Now such configuration monstrosities are created, sometimes even three or four times NATed. But to implement like in the USA, Germany or France on a large scale IPv6 is in our country "impossible".

.
As I said in T-Mobile you will get an ONT without a problem if you warn the technician about it when he calls.
That is, you set up the device as it suits you.
The only thing I would disagree with is the public IPv6 address, if someone wants to be behind NAT even after IPv6.
In Orange after LTE/5G you have NAT64 sources to find on the internet.

marcinfx585 wrote:

I will only disagree with the public IPv6 address, if someone wants to be behind NAT even after IPv6.

.
But I'm not writing for someone who wants to not be in favour of even tenfold NAT. It could even be the operator's default configuration. I'm writing about the fact that if someone doesn't want to be behind NAT, because for what reasons they need a public IP, they should always get one,. And nowadays this is getting worse and worse.
Besides, NAT alone doesn't protect against anything, except the most debilitating bots for mass scanning of devices. A firewall with NAT is sometimes called a "Du..poWall" in the industry, because it works as if you rotate this part of the body for protection and initiate traffic from one side. But there is a hole in this Du..oWall and someone from the other side can also initiate a movement . It is quite easy to craft packets that bypass NAT by impersonating packets of another session. Not to mention that NaT sessions will be opened by malware from inside the network. The same as CG-NAT can be done by the operator's firewall, but it will do it much more effectively, as it will be able to check the status of a session and attempt to replace it.

Added after 2 [minutes]:

marcinfx585 wrote:

In Orange after LTE/5G you have NAT64 sources to look up on the web.

Akurat in our country only Orange has done it well. In LTE/NR you always have public IPv6, although by default behind the firewall. You can purchase a service for 5PLN to disable this firewall and connect remotely via IPv6 if necessary.

IC_Current wrote:

But there is a hole in this Du..oWall and someone from the other side can also initiate some traffic . It is quite easy to craft packets that bypass NAT by impersonating packets from another session. Not to mention that NaT sessions will be opened by malware from inside the network. The same as CG-NAT can be done by the operator's firewall, but it will do it much more effectively, as it will be able to check the status of the session and attempt to replace it.

.
Do you have more information on this?
According to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4L4SVP248s NAT acts as a stateful firewall and that's what we usually set up for ourselves on desktop Linux or other FreeBSD.
CG-NAT itself according to one user of another forum works like this:

Quote:

.
this is CG-NAT, the router on the WAN has a private pool, the public address is virtually sewn on BRAS. This can only be bypassed with a reverse proxy.
They probably have management over the internal network and the user gets a q-in-q vlan from cg-nat

.

Added after 2 [hours] 14 [minutes]:

Of other interesting things we get ICMP type 11 on this homebox router, it has some weird port open quite high and best of all it has tcpdump installed on it....

marcinfx585 wrote:

Have more information on this topic?

.
NAT does not analyse the status of a TCP connection, let alone a UDP connection. It only creates an array mapping the corresponding socials.
All you have to do is zespoof an IP address to which someone has previously connected from inside the network and you have a door open to that computer.

IC_Current wrote:

marcinfx585 wrote:

Have more information on this topic?

.
NAT does not analyze the status of a TCP connection, let alone a UDP connection. It only creates an array mapping the corresponding socials.
Just zespoof an IP address that someone has previously connected to from inside the network and you have a door open to that computer.

How would this transition to VLAN QinQ from CG-NAT where we have a virtual IP address on BRAS?
In addition, such a user would be behind dual NAT, the operator's CG-NAT and his router's NAT.

marcinfx585 wrote:

How would this go to VLAN QinQ from CG-NAT where we have a virtual IP address on BRAS?

.
Well in the identical way that a response comes back from any other called public host from behind NAT.

IC_Current wrote:

.
I don't know about TM, but in Orange there is officially no ONT for individuals and they won't indicate this to you when you sign the contract. Only if you make an agreement with the technician before installation, and apparently during the contract, if you order a paid service "change of location of router installation" it is also possible to agree with the technician on ONT.

In Orange on the Fiberhost network they will connect ONT (Nokia) to anyone (such information I had from the technician a week ago during the installation, when I asked before installation/earlier contact BOK agreed only on date/time of installation).

IC_Current wrote:

.
On the other hand, regarding CG-NAT. This should be regulated by law. Whoever wants a private IP, gets a private one, whoever wants a public one, gets a public one (possibly for a small surcharge), and if the operator does not have a sufficient pool of public IPv4, then let it be obliged to allocate IPv6 free of charge on request. Now such configuration monstrosities are created, sometimes even three or four times NATed. But to implement as in the USA, Germany or France on a large scale IPv6 is in our country "impossible".

Exactly so should be, but from the current discussions that I see on the Internet / i.e. the desire to tell customers that the public IP service does not need / is so dangerous that it can kill them. IPv4 addresses are starting to become scarce and there are often offers without providing them a few zloty cheaper.

No one is saying anything here but a public IP address for CG-NAT for ordinary users is safer because they won't even knowingly expose anything to the world.
I agree that actually offers of links with public IP address for CG-NAT are or should be cheaper (I have not checked all offers)

Added after 7 [hours] 47 [minutes]:

IC_Current wrote:

.

marcinfx585 wrote:

What IPv6 and IPv4 addresses am I getting out of the orange FTTH link?

.
On their equipment, if you patch PPPoE sessions to IPv6, you get the whole pool of /64 or /48 (I don't know what it depends on). IPv4 are then reachable via DS-LITE with AFTR. This is their default configuration, and it's hard to replicate on other manufacturer's hardware, because it usually lacks AFTR address fetching via DHCPv6. There is only a static entry option.
If you do PPPoE over IPv4 then you get one public IPv4 address and no IPv6 access.

As for ONT in T-Mobile, the technicians give fibre optics right away, at least this is the case on Orange lines, so I don't know where you got such information.
What is the geolocation of IPv4 addresses behind AFTR or IPv6 in Orange fibre? I know it depends on the geoip base but I am asking someone who has a connection from them. What are the bandwidths with two PPPoE sessions for public IPv6 and IPv4?

eldon0 wrote:

What about the ONT in T-Mobile the fibre optic technicians give right away at least it is so on Orange lines also I don't know where you got such information.

From their technicians.

eldon0 wrote:

How is the geolocation of IPv4 addresses behind AFTR or IPv6 in Orange fibre?

don't know. I've never checked, it's 100% indifferent to me and not necessary for anything. However, all ASNs are correctly identified as belonging to Orange Polska or TP-Net.

eldon0 wrote:

How are the throughputs with two PPPoE sessions for public IPv6 and IPv4?

.
I didn't do tests on decent hardware because I either didn't have it to hand or I did, but I won't be doing such games at a client's site for obvious reasons. On soapboxes with IPv4 on a 1Gbps DL link the download starts at about 400Mbps, only to hit about 700Mbps after some time. On one session only for IPv4 there is 960Mbps. I have no way of meaningfully testing IPv6, as I know of no reliable test servers with reliable routing, and I myself have nowhere suitable for setting up such a server. Unfortunately my tests are completely unreliable, because firstly I am almost certain that with such dual, non-standard PPPoE there is no hardware acceleration for PPPoE / NAT on soapboxes, nor do I have trusted IPv6 servers.

eldon0 wrote:

No one is saying anything here but a public IP address for CG-NAT for ordinary users is safer because they won't even knowingly expose anything to the world.
I agree that actually offers of links with a public IP address for CG-NAT are or should be cheaper (I haven't checked all offers)

But nobody on the network at the moment connects 1 device/computer on which there is a public IP, that was the case 20 years ago. You're trying/as many of your customers do total..., there's always some gateway/AP/router that does NAT and on which there's no admin/admin login/password for a long time now-only the password is generated individually for one device. In T-Mobile there are no public IPs behind the CG-NAT, at least that's how it appears from the screen https://trzepak.pl/viewtopic.php?t=69473&start=75 , i.e. the internal address(es) to 1 public is connected to many customers (as in GSM networks). And the offers without available public IPs in T-Mobile, Play are cheaper by a few PLN than the others.

IC_Current wrote:

eldon0 wrote:

What about the ONT at T-Mobile, the technicians give fiber right away, at least this is the case on Orange lines, so I don't know where you got this information.

From their technicians.

So as you can see it depends specifically on your region/location but you have to get ONT at T-Mobile fibre on Orange lines right away this is according to their terms and conditions. You have to tell the technician when they call that you want an ONT, if they make any issue you don't sign the handover protocol and that's it.

IC_Current wrote:

I don't know. I have never checked, it is 100% indifferent to me and not necessary for anything. However, all ASNs are correctly identified as belonging to Orange Polska or TP-Net.

.
This is a pity, for many customers this is useful information on how their IP address is geolocalised in a given IP address database.

A trusted server with good routing is OVHcloud, even a VPS with 2Gbit/s symmetry. I say this from the perspective of tmobile ftth on orange links (they have different routing), I don't know how it will be for you.
I already wrote to you before that with two PPPoE sessions for public IPv6 and public IPv4 you are unlikely to have hardware acceleration.
Any other tests you are planning?

marcinfx585 wrote:

Any other tests you are planning?

.
Once I have a few conditions met:
- efficient hardware at hand
- a reliable server or other connection with decent uploads
- sufficient free time
- some willingness to play (with this is the most difficult, because after work you usually want to get away from computers)
So a lot of simultaneous conditions to meet ...

I'm adding a few details because the thread appears high in the search engine.

- You can ask for ONT at TM and they will bring it. In any case, on the Fibre Investment.
- For public IPv4 at TM you can also ask, cite that net friends got it, and they will give it. Free of charge. Be warned, it will be static.
- You get the connection data (user and pass) in the email after signing the contract. One of the PDF attachments.

You can also start with another operator. INEA e.g. on the MID always installs ONT + a pretty good combo. Then at most switch to TM or orange.

kashmiri wrote:

Of ONT in TM you can ask and they will bring it. In any case for Fibre Optic Investments.

I am just after the installation of the light from TM (Fibre optic Investments) and as the technician told me: it is not possible for me to install the ONT. And I asked him earlier. He added that it probably depends on the region of Poland.

Adam-T wrote:

kashmiri wrote:

Of ONT in TM you can ask and they will bring. In any case, at Fibre Investment.

I am just after the installation of the light from TM (Fibre optic Investments) and as the technician told me: it is not possible for me to install the ONT. And I asked him earlier. He added that it probably depends on the region of Poland.

.
You have had an account since 2004 and I won't even comment on that but if you would have refused to install without an ONT then a technician would have found you that ONT. Without signing the handover protocol you are not bound by any contract because it is not concluded.
Now, if you want an ONT from them, you have to pay for the "paid assistance" of a technician who, for more than 100 PLN added to the invoice payable at the end of the month, will install the ONT for you, or you can make a temporary arrangement with a Leox ONT or their insert (there is a topic on trzepak or youtube "how to get rid of the operator's router and have faster internet", ridiculous title but well, from some Rafał from ifixit on youtube.

If you want a permanent public IPv4 address for this ONT it is best to write a complaint in the living room, because if you write to boa(_at_)t-mobile.pl then depending on the consultant they may write back that "we don't offer it for fibre" when in fact they do, but someone above taught them to dismiss such customers because IPv4 addresses cost money, a negligible cost for t-mobile but it is still more profitable for them to do CG-NAT (can anyone confirm that it is not NAT one to one?)

kashmiri wrote:

.
I'm adding a few details as the thread appears high in the search engine.

- You can ask for ONT at TM and they will bring it. In any case, on Fibre Investments.
- For public IPv4 in TM you can also ask, cite that net friends got it, and they will give it. Free of charge. Be warned, it will be static.
- You get the connection data (user and pass) in the email after signing the contract. One of the PDF attachments.

You can also start with another operator. INEA e.g. on the MID always installs ONT + a pretty good combo. Then at most switch to TM or orange.

.
If we do not give an email address because we are not naive to give for t-mobile, why? See the data leak from e.g. a2mobile or recently from alab laboratories then the consultant will print us the data for PPPoE. Quoting here from this thread:

marcinfx585 wrote:

The login for PPPoE itself is the phone number that T-Mobile itself provides ie:
48998xxxxxxxx and that ridiculous 10 character password from the contract, upper and lower case.
Why such an idea from them for such weak passwords?

.
The t-mobile phone number "requirement" itself remains, why? I don't know, they explain that they need to know where the technician has to call but strangely they can't remove this number later in the database.

As far as other information that might be useful for someone is concerned, a large part of HOPs in orange optic fibre are from TPNET (host tpnet.pl) in t-mobile they are from eranet.pl
RevDNS for orange looks like this:
ipv6.supernova.orange.pl
ipv4.supernova.orange.pl

For t-mobile it is:
ftth.dynamic.t-mobile.pl or static.t-mobile.pl if you ask for a public IP address

With geolocalisation of such IPv6 or IPv4 addresses, in orange it looks quite correct with no prefix /ipv6 (then we get a variable public IPv4 address, with the /ipv6 prefix we are behind CG-NAT) in t-mobile we have CG-NAT by default. Probably the number of people who added the correct (or relatively correct as far as cities are concerned, because provinces should match) city names to databases, e.g. maxmind I think that orange PoP point of presence which are in every major city, probably provinces, are irrelevant, but officially orange does not play with such geolocalisation according to what they said at the presentation.

Adam-T wrote:

kashmiri wrote:

Of ONT in TM you can ask and they will bring. In any case for Fibre Investments.

.
I am just after the installation of the light from TM (Światłowód Inwestycje) and as the technician told me: it is not possible for me to install the ONT. And I asked him earlier. He added that it probably depends on the region of Poland.

Well... in Orange (also in WY) ONT can be "forced". Checked.
Perhaps you were fooled by a technician who "didn't want to" or for some other reason .... but in my opinion you were fooled nonetheless.

Hello.
At my place with ONT in Orange 3 - 4 years ago there was a similar situation. Two came for the installation, one was Ukrainian, the other Polish. After I insisted on installing ONT, and if it should be without ONT, thank you. One of them said that they didn't have it on site, they had to bring it in and a re-installation date had to be arranged. On the re-schedule another technician Pole had already arrived and installed the ONT Funbox. They get some paid installation jobs and it is up to them to do this service. I should add that in the city where I live, it is some external company that performs these installations - Gorzów Wielkopolski is a hole and that is probably why they did not have this ONT on site . Today, having already given up on Orange and unplugged my fibre, I am preparing to make a deal with Nju, no matter whether I get the ONT or not. I can apply the Leox company, only I read somewhere that supposedly the PPPoE login and password do not come in Nju after resetting them through the application available on the phone. Does anyone know if this is actually the case, or is this another putty ala T-Mobile's lack of ONT or external IP? . Greetings

Hello.
I decided to link to the topic because it seems to apply to my problem as well.
In the last solved post I set up my fibre network from T-Mobile via 3 x Deco X20 via PPPoE. This works, it seems, more efficiently than before.
On the other hand, I need to set up IPv6 at my place (for Matter devices etc). And this is where the stumbling block begins as I don't know exactly how to do it correctly. In the Deco options there is an option to enable IPv6, but I don't know whether I should set the connection as "Dynamic IP" or as PPPoE or as PPPoE with the same settings as IPv4. Does anyone have experience with these settings?
Regardless of what I set up to test some IPv6 address is only visible on the main X20 router, while on the satellites connected by cable via switch (with Ethernet Backhaul) it is not visible - I assumed that since they each have a separate IPv4 address it must be the same with IPv6, but maybe I am wrong?
Also, is there any site that checks if I have IPv6?
.