Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6
So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS at our farm. Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average. Yay. It's a business account, Frontier. But...still no IPv6. The new router's capable of it. What's the hold up? Customer service's response is "We don't offer that".
You're not alone. I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and they said "We will probably start looking into IPv6 next year". I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah, everyone seems to be offering it. I guess I'll have to start reading how to implement it". I'm sure 2045 will finally be the year of IPv6 everywhere. -A On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:36 AM C. A. Fillekes <cfillekes@gmail.com> wrote:
So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS at our farm.
Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average. Yay.
It's a business account, Frontier. But...still no IPv6.
The new router's capable of it. What's the hold up?
Customer service's response is "We don't offer that".
Things are no better in Spectrum land; gotta love the innovation in monopoly markets…. I ask every year and expect it in perhaps thirty. From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of "Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Reply-To: "Aaron C. de Bruyn" <aaron@heyaaron.com> Date: Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 4:26 PM To: "C. A. Fillekes" <cfillekes@gmail.com> Cc: NANOG mailing list <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6 You're not alone. I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and they said "We will probably start looking into IPv6 next year". I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah, everyone seems to be offering it. I guess I'll have to start reading how to implement it". I'm sure 2045 will finally be the year of IPv6 everywhere. -A On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:36 AM C. A. Fillekes <cfillekes@gmail.com<mailto:cfillekes@gmail.com>> wrote: So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS at our farm. Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average. Yay. It's a business account, Frontier. But...still no IPv6. The new router's capable of it. What's the hold up? Customer service's response is "We don't offer that".
FWIW, I have had IPv6 for many years on my Spectrum (formerly Time Warner) connection at home. I think it was ~2012 or so. On our company fiber connection, it has been since ~2010, maybe a little earlier. Granted it took a little pressure and I’m sure were were the first IPv6 business customer in our area. -Randy
On Mar 31, 2019, at 16:32, David Hubbard <dhubbard@dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote:
Things are no better in Spectrum land; gotta love the innovation in monopoly markets…. I ask every year and expect it in perhaps thirty.
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of "Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Reply-To: "Aaron C. de Bruyn" <aaron@heyaaron.com> Date: Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 4:26 PM To: "C. A. Fillekes" <cfillekes@gmail.com> Cc: NANOG mailing list <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6
You're not alone.
I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and they said "We will probably start looking into IPv6 next year". I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah, everyone seems to be offering it. I guess I'll have to start reading how to implement it".
I'm sure 2045 will finally be the year of IPv6 everywhere.
-A
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:36 AM C. A. Fillekes <cfillekes@gmail.com> wrote:
So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS at our farm.
Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average. Yay.
It's a business account, Frontier. But...still no IPv6.
The new router's capable of it. What's the hold up?
Customer service's response is "We don't offer that".
Depends on the spectrum markets. I have dual stack ipv6 at my house in NC On Mar 31, 2019, at 4:32 PM, David Hubbard <dhubbard@dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote: Things are no better in Spectrum land; gotta love the innovation in monopoly markets…. I ask every year and expect it in perhaps thirty. From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of "Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Reply-To: "Aaron C. de Bruyn" <aaron@heyaaron.com> Date: Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 4:26 PM To: "C. A. Fillekes" <cfillekes@gmail.com> Cc: NANOG mailing list <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6 You're not alone. I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and they said "We will probably start looking into IPv6 next year". I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah, everyone seems to be offering it. I guess I'll have to start reading how to implement it". I'm sure 2045 will finally be the year of IPv6 everywhere. -A Jamie Stephens 864.438.8014 Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:36 AM C. A. Fillekes <cfillekes@gmail.com> wrote: So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS at our farm. Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average. Yay. It's a business account, Frontier. But...still no IPv6. The new router's capable of it. What's the hold up? Customer service's response is "We don't offer that".
I’m in Spectrum land, née Time Warner, née Rigas Cash Extraction Machine... errr Adelphia. ( Buffalo / WNY ) We’ve had native v6 for quite a few years up here. On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 16:55 Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us> wrote:
On 3/31/19 13:31, David Hubbard wrote:
Things are no better in Spectrum land; gotta love the innovation in monopoly markets…. I ask every year and expect it in perhaps thirty.
It depends if you're Charter or Time Warner. Charter does.
On 3/31/19 10:05 PM, Tom Beecher wrote:
I’m in Spectrum land, née Time Warner, née Rigas Cash Extraction Machine... errr Adelphia. ( Buffalo / WNY )
We’ve had native v6 for quite a few years up here.
Spectrum ex. Bright House/Time Warner varies by region. NY region has had it, apparently. Indianapolis has not, does not, and, from what I gather, will not (for a long time). Apparently the regional operations of Bright House/TWC were very separated. They had other significant policy differences, too, e.g. caps/overages, AUP differences (especially as enforced vs. as written), etc. -- Brandon Martin
Still it's pretty darn good having real broadband on the farm. One thing at a time. But, let's start thinking about ways to get Frontier up to speed on the IPv6 thing. On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:24 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn <aaron@heyaaron.com> wrote:
You're not alone.
I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and they said "We will probably start looking into IPv6 next year". I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah, everyone seems to be offering it. I guess I'll have to start reading how to implement it".
I'm sure 2045 will finally be the year of IPv6 everywhere.
-A
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:36 AM C. A. Fillekes <cfillekes@gmail.com> wrote:
So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS at our farm.
Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average. Yay.
It's a business account, Frontier. But...still no IPv6.
The new router's capable of it. What's the hold up?
Customer service's response is "We don't offer that".
Going to play devils advocate. If frontier has a ton of ipv4 addresses, what benefit is there to them in rolling out ipv6? What benefit is there to you?
On Mar 31, 2019, at 7:11 PM, C. A. Fillekes <cfillekes@gmail.com> wrote:
Still it's pretty darn good having real broadband on the farm. One thing at a time.
But, let's start thinking about ways to get Frontier up to speed on the IPv6 thing.
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:24 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn <aaron@heyaaron.com> wrote: You're not alone.
I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and they said "We will probably start looking into IPv6 next year". I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah, everyone seems to be offering it. I guess I'll have to start reading how to implement it".
I'm sure 2045 will finally be the year of IPv6 everywhere.
-A
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:36 AM C. A. Fillekes <cfillekes@gmail.com> wrote:
So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS at our farm.
Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average. Yay.
It's a business account, Frontier. But...still no IPv6.
The new router's capable of it. What's the hold up?
Customer service's response is "We don't offer that".
You mean like pulse dialing and stepper relays vs touch tone dialing? I'm sure there were people that felt the same about that too. That mindset is simply you already paid for the old stuff, it's working fine, you would rather not understand or think about the problems the new tech solves or benefits it provides. To be motivated to do something you have to have a reason or goal. Most all goal seeking behavior in business can be put two buckets: 1) revenue at risk and 2) revenue enabled. i.e. one is going away from pain and the other is going towards a reward. Making a plan is based on your perception of current and future events. At scale the market does a whole lot of testing of economic fitness functions that are the result of the decisions of each of our companies makes about what all of this means. If you were an independent telephone company around 1955 to 1965 with relay based switches deciding when and if and why to use DTMF or a variant, I'm sure there was exactly the same dynamic. Situation: telecom company with old technology that was still working trying to decide what to do. I mean, your phones still worked on that day you were starting out the window musing about it. Why not just go to lunch and forget about it? While you were out to lunch after putting off deciding what to do about your relay switches around the same period of time the global phone system was growing at a breakneck speed and the first submarine transatlantic telephone cable system was getting run. Some people won't like this story because it is about making business decisions about technology when you aren't sure of the reasons to either do or not do something and isn't arguing about some specific concrete reason to add IPv6 support like: 1) the world has more people than IPv4 addresses or something 2) you work for a big company and would like your revenue from the Internet to keep growing over the next 10 years uninterrupted due the risk of not supporting IPv6 and this is too trivial of a technology decision because the incremental cost is so small (compared to all the other fires you have burning) to just add support anyway. I get where you are coming from. On 3/31/19 4:19 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
Going to play devils advocate.
If frontier has a ton of ipv4 addresses, what benefit is there to them in rolling out ipv6?
What benefit is there to you?
On Mar 31, 2019, at 7:11 PM, C. A. Fillekes <cfillekes@gmail.com <mailto:cfillekes@gmail.com>> wrote:
Still it's pretty darn good having real broadband on the farm. One thing at a time.
But, let's start thinking about ways to get Frontier up to speed on the IPv6 thing.
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:24 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn <aaron@heyaaron.com <mailto:aaron@heyaaron.com>> wrote:
You're not alone.
I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and they said "We will probably start looking into IPv6 next year". I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah, everyone seems to be offering it. I guess I'll have to start reading how to implement it".
I'm sure 2045 will finally be the year of IPv6 everywhere.
-A
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:36 AM C. A. Fillekes <cfillekes@gmail.com <mailto:cfillekes@gmail.com>> wrote:
So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS at our farm.
Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average. Yay.
It's a business account, Frontier. But...still no IPv6.
The new router's capable of it. What's the hold up?
Customer service's response is "We don't offer that".
Telcos had an advantage, they were able to put the cost of that new fancy switch into our cost study / rate base. So they were rewarded for spending money, and boy did they spend money. Luke Ns Sent from my iPhone On Mar 31, 2019, at 7:20 PM, Mike Leber <mleber@he.net<mailto:mleber@he.net>> wrote: You mean like pulse dialing and stepper relays vs touch tone dialing? I'm sure there were people that felt the same about that too. That mindset is simply you already paid for the old stuff, it's working fine, you would rather not understand or think about the problems the new tech solves or benefits it provides. To be motivated to do something you have to have a reason or goal. Most all goal seeking behavior in business can be put two buckets: 1) revenue at risk and 2) revenue enabled. i.e. one is going away from pain and the other is going towards a reward. Making a plan is based on your perception of current and future events. At scale the market does a whole lot of testing of economic fitness functions that are the result of the decisions of each of our companies makes about what all of this means. If you were an independent telephone company around 1955 to 1965 with relay based switches deciding when and if and why to use DTMF or a variant, I'm sure there was exactly the same dynamic. Situation: telecom company with old technology that was still working trying to decide what to do. I mean, your phones still worked on that day you were starting out the window musing about it. Why not just go to lunch and forget about it? While you were out to lunch after putting off deciding what to do about your relay switches around the same period of time the global phone system was growing at a breakneck speed and the first submarine transatlantic telephone cable system was getting run. Some people won't like this story because it is about making business decisions about technology when you aren't sure of the reasons to either do or not do something and isn't arguing about some specific concrete reason to add IPv6 support like: 1) the world has more people than IPv4 addresses or something 2) you work for a big company and would like your revenue from the Internet to keep growing over the next 10 years uninterrupted due the risk of not supporting IPv6 and this is too trivial of a technology decision because the incremental cost is so small (compared to all the other fires you have burning) to just add support anyway. I get where you are coming from. On 3/31/19 4:19 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote: Going to play devils advocate. If frontier has a ton of ipv4 addresses, what benefit is there to them in rolling out ipv6? What benefit is there to you? On Mar 31, 2019, at 7:11 PM, C. A. Fillekes <cfillekes@gmail.com<mailto:cfillekes@gmail.com>> wrote: Still it's pretty darn good having real broadband on the farm. One thing at a time. But, let's start thinking about ways to get Frontier up to speed on the IPv6 thing. On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:24 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn <aaron@heyaaron.com<mailto:aaron@heyaaron.com>> wrote: You're not alone. I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and they said "We will probably start looking into IPv6 next year". I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah, everyone seems to be offering it. I guess I'll have to start reading how to implement it". I'm sure 2045 will finally be the year of IPv6 everywhere. -A On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:36 AM C. A. Fillekes <cfillekes@gmail.com<mailto:cfillekes@gmail.com>> wrote: So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS at our farm. Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average. Yay. It's a business account, Frontier. But...still no IPv6. The new router's capable of it. What's the hold up? Customer service's response is "We don't offer that".
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:20 PM Matt Hoppes < mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
Going to play devils advocate.
If frontier has a ton of ipv4 addresses, what benefit is there to them in rolling out ipv6?
What benefit is there to you?
I love xbox and xbox works better on ipv6, https://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/wed.general.palmer.xbox_.47.pdf Also, webpages load faster , and i love fast web pages https://code.fb.com/networking-traffic/ipv6-it-s-time-to-get-on-board/ https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/technical-publication/a-ca...
On Mar 31, 2019, at 7:11 PM, C. A. Fillekes <cfillekes@gmail.com> wrote:
Still it's pretty darn good having real broadband on the farm. One thing at a time.
But, let's start thinking about ways to get Frontier up to speed on the IPv6 thing.
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:24 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn <aaron@heyaaron.com> wrote:
You're not alone.
I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and they said "We will probably start looking into IPv6 next year". I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah, everyone seems to be offering it. I guess I'll have to start reading how to implement it".
I'm sure 2045 will finally be the year of IPv6 everywhere.
-A
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:36 AM C. A. Fillekes <cfillekes@gmail.com> wrote:
So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS at our farm.
Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average. Yay.
It's a business account, Frontier. But...still no IPv6.
The new router's capable of it. What's the hold up?
Customer service's response is "We don't offer that".
It is not possible for web pages to load faster over IPv6 than over IPv4. All other factors being equal, IPv6 has higher overhead than IPv4 for the same payload throughput. This means that it is physically impossible for IPv6 to be move payload bytes "faster" than IPv4 can move the same payload. In other words, IPv6 has a higher "packet tax" than IPv4. Since you have no choice but to pay the "packet tax" the actual payload data flows more slowly. --- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ca By Sent: Sunday, 31 March, 2019 18:53 To: Matt Hoppes Cc: Aaron C. de Bruyn; NANOG mailing list Subject: Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:20 PM Matt Hoppes <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
Going to play devils advocate.
If frontier has a ton of ipv4 addresses, what benefit is there to them in rolling out ipv6?
What benefit is there to you?
I love xbox and xbox works better on ipv6,
https://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/wed.general.palmer.xbox_.47 .pdf
Also, webpages load faster , and i love fast web pages
https://code.fb.com/networking-traffic/ipv6-it-s-time-to-get-on- board/
https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/technical- publication/a-case-for-faster-mobile-web-in-cellular-ipv6- networks.pdf
On Mar 31, 2019, at 7:11 PM, C. A. Fillekes <cfillekes@gmail.com> wrote:
Still it's pretty darn good having real broadband on the farm. One thing at a time.
But, let's start thinking about ways to get Frontier up to speed on the IPv6 thing.
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:24 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn <aaron@heyaaron.com> wrote:
You're not alone.
I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and they said "We will probably start looking into IPv6 next year". I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah, everyone seems to be offering it. I guess I'll have to start reading how to implement it".
I'm sure 2045 will finally be the year of IPv6 everywhere.
-A
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:36 AM C. A. Fillekes <cfillekes@gmail.com> wrote:
So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS at our farm.
Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average. Yay.
It's a business account, Frontier. But...still no IPv6.
The new router's capable of it. What's the hold up?
Customer service's response is "We don't offer that".
You are assuming the routing and transit relationships in IPv4 are the same in IPv6. IPv4 has many many many suboptimal transit relationships where routing is purposely suboptimal on the part of the networks in the path due to competitive reasons. One example of suboptimal routing is traffic not being exchanged in a closer location where both networks exist and instead being routed hundreds or thousands of miles out of the way. Customers don't get to influence the decisions of monopolies etc. Customers choose based on inertia, brand experience, and what options are even available to them to get IPv6 vs IPv4. IPv6 has randomized some of these vendor relationships due to some upstream networks not even implementing IPv6, meaning the downstream networks were forced to make other choices. On 3/31/19 6:21 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
It is not possible for web pages to load faster over IPv6 than over IPv4. All other factors being equal, IPv6 has higher overhead than IPv4 for the same payload throughput. This means that it is physically impossible for IPv6 to be move payload bytes "faster" than IPv4 can move the same payload.
In other words, IPv6 has a higher "packet tax" than IPv4. Since you have no choice but to pay the "packet tax" the actual payload data flows more slowly.
--- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ca By Sent: Sunday, 31 March, 2019 18:53 To: Matt Hoppes Cc: Aaron C. de Bruyn; NANOG mailing list Subject: Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:20 PM Matt Hoppes <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
Going to play devils advocate.
If frontier has a ton of ipv4 addresses, what benefit is there to them in rolling out ipv6?
What benefit is there to you?
I love xbox and xbox works better on ipv6,
https://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/wed.general.palmer.xbox_.47 .pdf
Also, webpages load faster , and i love fast web pages
https://code.fb.com/networking-traffic/ipv6-it-s-time-to-get-on- board/
https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/technical- publication/a-case-for-faster-mobile-web-in-cellular-ipv6- networks.pdf
On Mar 31, 2019, at 7:11 PM, C. A. Fillekes <cfillekes@gmail.com> wrote:
Still it's pretty darn good having real broadband on the farm. One thing at a time.
But, let's start thinking about ways to get Frontier up to speed on the IPv6 thing.
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:24 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn <aaron@heyaaron.com> wrote:
You're not alone.
I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and they said "We will probably start looking into IPv6 next year". I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah, everyone seems to be offering it. I guess I'll have to start reading how to implement it".
I'm sure 2045 will finally be the year of IPv6 everywhere.
-A
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:36 AM C. A. Fillekes <cfillekes@gmail.com> wrote:
So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS at our farm.
Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average. Yay.
It's a business account, Frontier. But...still no IPv6.
The new router's capable of it. What's the hold up?
Customer service's response is "We don't offer that".
Furthermore, NAT, prevalent with IPv4, adds latency. There is none with IPv6 (unless you're doing it wrong.) On 3/31/19 8:42 PM, Mike Leber wrote:
You are assuming the routing and transit relationships in IPv4 are the same in IPv6.
IPv4 has many many many suboptimal transit relationships where routing is purposely suboptimal on the part of the networks in the path due to competitive reasons. One example of suboptimal routing is traffic not being exchanged in a closer location where both networks exist and instead being routed hundreds or thousands of miles out of the way.
Customers don't get to influence the decisions of monopolies etc.
Customers choose based on inertia, brand experience, and what options are even available to them to get IPv6 vs IPv4.
IPv6 has randomized some of these vendor relationships due to some upstream networks not even implementing IPv6, meaning the downstream networks were forced to make other choices.
On 3/31/19 6:21 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
It is not possible for web pages to load faster over IPv6 than over IPv4. All other factors being equal, IPv6 has higher overhead than IPv4 for the same payload throughput. This means that it is physically impossible for IPv6 to be move payload bytes "faster" than IPv4 can move the same payload.
In other words, IPv6 has a higher "packet tax" than IPv4. Since you have no choice but to pay the "packet tax" the actual payload data flows more slowly.
--- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ca By Sent: Sunday, 31 March, 2019 18:53 To: Matt Hoppes Cc: Aaron C. de Bruyn; NANOG mailing list Subject: Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:20 PM Matt Hoppes <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
Going to play devils advocate.
If frontier has a ton of ipv4 addresses, what benefit is there to them in rolling out ipv6?
What benefit is there to you?
I love xbox and xbox works better on ipv6,
https://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/wed.general.palmer.xbox_.47 .pdf
Also, webpages load faster , and i love fast web pages
https://code.fb.com/networking-traffic/ipv6-it-s-time-to-get-on- board/
https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/technical- publication/a-case-for-faster-mobile-web-in-cellular-ipv6- networks.pdf
On Mar 31, 2019, at 7:11 PM, C. A. Fillekes <cfillekes@gmail.com> wrote:
Still it's pretty darn good having real broadband on the farm. One thing at a time.
But, let's start thinking about ways to get Frontier up to speed on the IPv6 thing.
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:24 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn <aaron@heyaaron.com> wrote:
You're not alone.
I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and they said "We will probably start looking into IPv6 next year". I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah, everyone seems to be offering it. I guess I'll have to start reading how to implement it".
I'm sure 2045 will finally be the year of IPv6 everywhere.
-A
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:36 AM C. A. Fillekes <cfillekes@gmail.com> wrote:
So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS at our farm.
Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average. Yay.
It's a business account, Frontier. But...still no IPv6.
The new router's capable of it. What's the hold up?
Customer service's response is "We don't offer that".
The telephone example: What IS the benefit of DTMF other than I can dial faster? None. And I can use IVRs. Again - no impact to me as a telephone company. As far as ipv6. It’s been proven things “load faster” because the ipv6 servers of the various websites are not as heavily loaded as the ipv4 variants. All things equal - ipv6 doesn’t load faster. There’s literally no advantage to ipv6 other than “I’m out of ipv4 and need to continue to provide public routable Ips to my customers. “
On Mar 31, 2019, at 9:42 PM, Mike Leber <mleber@he.net> wrote:
You are assuming the routing and transit relationships in IPv4 are the same in IPv6.
IPv4 has many many many suboptimal transit relationships where routing is purposely suboptimal on the part of the networks in the path due to competitive reasons. One example of suboptimal routing is traffic not being exchanged in a closer location where both networks exist and instead being routed hundreds or thousands of miles out of the way.
Customers don't get to influence the decisions of monopolies etc.
Customers choose based on inertia, brand experience, and what options are even available to them to get IPv6 vs IPv4.
IPv6 has randomized some of these vendor relationships due to some upstream networks not even implementing IPv6, meaning the downstream networks were forced to make other choices.
On 3/31/19 6:21 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote: It is not possible for web pages to load faster over IPv6 than over IPv4. All other factors being equal, IPv6 has higher overhead than IPv4 for the same payload throughput. This means that it is physically impossible for IPv6 to be move payload bytes "faster" than IPv4 can move the same payload.
In other words, IPv6 has a higher "packet tax" than IPv4. Since you have no choice but to pay the "packet tax" the actual payload data flows more slowly.
--- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ca By Sent: Sunday, 31 March, 2019 18:53 To: Matt Hoppes Cc: Aaron C. de Bruyn; NANOG mailing list Subject: Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:20 PM Matt Hoppes <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
Going to play devils advocate.
If frontier has a ton of ipv4 addresses, what benefit is there to them in rolling out ipv6?
What benefit is there to you?
I love xbox and xbox works better on ipv6,
https://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/wed.general.palmer.xbox_.47 .pdf
Also, webpages load faster , and i love fast web pages
https://code.fb.com/networking-traffic/ipv6-it-s-time-to-get-on- board/
https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/technical- publication/a-case-for-faster-mobile-web-in-cellular-ipv6- networks.pdf
On Mar 31, 2019, at 7:11 PM, C. A. Fillekes <cfillekes@gmail.com> wrote:
Still it's pretty darn good having real broadband on the farm. One thing at a time.
But, let's start thinking about ways to get Frontier up to speed on the IPv6 thing.
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:24 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn <aaron@heyaaron.com> wrote:
You're not alone.
I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and they said "We will probably start looking into IPv6 next year". I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah, everyone seems to be offering it. I guess I'll have to start reading how to implement it".
I'm sure 2045 will finally be the year of IPv6 everywhere.
-A
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:36 AM C. A. Fillekes <cfillekes@gmail.com> wrote:
So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS at our farm.
Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average. Yay.
It's a business account, Frontier. But...still no IPv6.
The new router's capable of it. What's the hold up?
Customer service's response is "We don't offer that".
My mom was cheap and only had pulse dialing in the 90s, it made using pagers difficult. Had to flip to tone after it dialed. Ns Sent from my iPad
On Mar 31, 2019, at 8:53 PM, Matt Hoppes <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
The telephone example: What IS the benefit of DTMF other than I can dial faster? None. And I can use IVRs. Again - no impact to me as a telephone company.
As far as ipv6. It’s been proven things “load faster” because the ipv6 servers of the various websites are not as heavily loaded as the ipv4 variants.
All things equal - ipv6 doesn’t load faster. There’s literally no advantage to ipv6 other than “I’m out of ipv4 and need to continue to provide public routable Ips to my customers. “
On Mar 31, 2019, at 9:42 PM, Mike Leber <mleber@he.net> wrote:
You are assuming the routing and transit relationships in IPv4 are the same in IPv6.
IPv4 has many many many suboptimal transit relationships where routing is purposely suboptimal on the part of the networks in the path due to competitive reasons. One example of suboptimal routing is traffic not being exchanged in a closer location where both networks exist and instead being routed hundreds or thousands of miles out of the way.
Customers don't get to influence the decisions of monopolies etc.
Customers choose based on inertia, brand experience, and what options are even available to them to get IPv6 vs IPv4.
IPv6 has randomized some of these vendor relationships due to some upstream networks not even implementing IPv6, meaning the downstream networks were forced to make other choices.
On 3/31/19 6:21 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote: It is not possible for web pages to load faster over IPv6 than over IPv4. All other factors being equal, IPv6 has higher overhead than IPv4 for the same payload throughput. This means that it is physically impossible for IPv6 to be move payload bytes "faster" than IPv4 can move the same payload.
In other words, IPv6 has a higher "packet tax" than IPv4. Since you have no choice but to pay the "packet tax" the actual payload data flows more slowly.
--- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ca By Sent: Sunday, 31 March, 2019 18:53 To: Matt Hoppes Cc: Aaron C. de Bruyn; NANOG mailing list Subject: Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:20 PM Matt Hoppes <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
Going to play devils advocate.
If frontier has a ton of ipv4 addresses, what benefit is there to them in rolling out ipv6?
What benefit is there to you?
I love xbox and xbox works better on ipv6,
https://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/wed.general.palmer.xbox_.47 .pdf
Also, webpages load faster , and i love fast web pages
https://code.fb.com/networking-traffic/ipv6-it-s-time-to-get-on- board/
https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/technical- publication/a-case-for-faster-mobile-web-in-cellular-ipv6- networks.pdf
On Mar 31, 2019, at 7:11 PM, C. A. Fillekes <cfillekes@gmail.com> wrote:
Still it's pretty darn good having real broadband on the farm. One thing at a time.
But, let's start thinking about ways to get Frontier up to speed on the IPv6 thing.
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:24 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn <aaron@heyaaron.com> wrote:
You're not alone.
I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and they said "We will probably start looking into IPv6 next year". I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah, everyone seems to be offering it. I guess I'll have to start reading how to implement it".
I'm sure 2045 will finally be the year of IPv6 everywhere.
-A
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:36 AM C. A. Fillekes <cfillekes@gmail.com> wrote:
So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS at our farm.
Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average. Yay.
It's a business account, Frontier. But...still no IPv6.
The new router's capable of it. What's the hold up?
Customer service's response is "We don't offer that".
I remember tapping the switch-hook to emulate pulse-dialing on touch-tone phones. Few were impressed. On 3/31/19 9:01 PM, Luke Guillory wrote:
My mom was cheap and only had pulse dialing in the 90s, it made using pagers difficult. Had to flip to tone after it dialed.
Ns
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 31, 2019, at 8:53 PM, Matt Hoppes <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
The telephone example: What IS the benefit of DTMF other than I can dial faster? None. And I can use IVRs. Again - no impact to me as a telephone company.
As far as ipv6. It’s been proven things “load faster” because the ipv6 servers of the various websites are not as heavily loaded as the ipv4 variants.
All things equal - ipv6 doesn’t load faster. There’s literally no advantage to ipv6 other than “I’m out of ipv4 and need to continue to provide public routable Ips to my customers. “
On Mar 31, 2019, at 9:42 PM, Mike Leber <mleber@he.net> wrote:
You are assuming the routing and transit relationships in IPv4 are the same in IPv6.
IPv4 has many many many suboptimal transit relationships where routing is purposely suboptimal on the part of the networks in the path due to competitive reasons. One example of suboptimal routing is traffic not being exchanged in a closer location where both networks exist and instead being routed hundreds or thousands of miles out of the way.
Customers don't get to influence the decisions of monopolies etc.
Customers choose based on inertia, brand experience, and what options are even available to them to get IPv6 vs IPv4.
IPv6 has randomized some of these vendor relationships due to some upstream networks not even implementing IPv6, meaning the downstream networks were forced to make other choices.
On 3/31/19 6:21 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote: It is not possible for web pages to load faster over IPv6 than over IPv4. All other factors being equal, IPv6 has higher overhead than IPv4 for the same payload throughput. This means that it is physically impossible for IPv6 to be move payload bytes "faster" than IPv4 can move the same payload.
In other words, IPv6 has a higher "packet tax" than IPv4. Since you have no choice but to pay the "packet tax" the actual payload data flows more slowly.
--- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ca By Sent: Sunday, 31 March, 2019 18:53 To: Matt Hoppes Cc: Aaron C. de Bruyn; NANOG mailing list Subject: Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:20 PM Matt Hoppes <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
Going to play devils advocate.
If frontier has a ton of ipv4 addresses, what benefit is there to them in rolling out ipv6?
What benefit is there to you?
I love xbox and xbox works better on ipv6,
https://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/wed.general.palmer.xbox_.47 .pdf
Also, webpages load faster , and i love fast web pages
https://code.fb.com/networking-traffic/ipv6-it-s-time-to-get-on- board/
https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/technical- publication/a-case-for-faster-mobile-web-in-cellular-ipv6- networks.pdf
On Mar 31, 2019, at 7:11 PM, C. A. Fillekes <cfillekes@gmail.com> wrote:
Still it's pretty darn good having real broadband on the farm. One thing at a time.
But, let's start thinking about ways to get Frontier up to speed on the IPv6 thing.
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:24 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn <aaron@heyaaron.com> wrote:
You're not alone.
I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and they said "We will probably start looking into IPv6 next year". I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah, everyone seems to be offering it. I guess I'll have to start reading how to implement it".
I'm sure 2045 will finally be the year of IPv6 everywhere.
-A
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:36 AM C. A. Fillekes <cfillekes@gmail.com> wrote:
So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS at our farm.
Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average. Yay.
It's a business account, Frontier. But...still no IPv6.
The new router's capable of it. What's the hold up?
Customer service's response is "We don't offer that".
On Mar 31, 2019, at 9:50 PM, Matt Hoppes <mattlists@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
The telephone example: What IS the benefit of DTMF other than I can dial faster? None. And I can use IVRs. Again - no impact to me as a telephone company.
OK, this is off topic to an extent, but DTMF provided the opportunity for immense savings in the cable plant because of the copper gauge reduction allowed. Dropping the requirement for transmitting switch actuations (DC on-off) allowed development of more cost effective transmission solutions. The removal of the mechanical dial and included governor mechanism dropped both manufacturing and maintenance costs for telephone sets and provided the opportunity for creative packaging not limited by the rotary dial size. That’s enough off topic for now. As for IPv6: If one assumes that the Internet is a world-wide network of networks and that connected devices, including multiple personal devices, will continue to proliferate — Management and equipment cost for kluges to compensate for the dearth of IPv4 addresses and still provide universal connectivity will continue to escalate. Investment in native IPv6 provides an obvious future cost avoidance opportunity. Even ISPs that say, “My network is just fine.” will eventually run into this financial reality. James R. Cutler James.cutler@consultant.com GPG keys: hkps://hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net
participants (15)
-
Aaron C. de Bruyn -
Brandon Martin -
Bryan Holloway -
C. A. Fillekes -
Ca By -
David Hubbard -
James R Cutler -
Jamie Stephens -
Keith Medcalf -
Luke Guillory -
Matt Hoppes -
Mike Leber -
Randy Carpenter -
Seth Mattinen -
Tom Beecher