So I was curious, has anyone managed to penetrate the black hole that appears to be surrounding any actual details on Verizon FIOS IPv6 deployment? Their last official announcement indicated they would start deploying it in 2012, and clearly that didn't happen. I've been asking on and off for a couple of years, and never been able to get any actual answer as to when it might be available or why it is being so delayed. Comcast has www.comcast6.net, which evidently tells you when you're going to get it, if you don't *already* have it. From what I can tell, most large providers, if not already providing it, at least have some reasonable timeline as to their progress...
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014, Paul B. Henson wrote:
So I was curious, has anyone managed to penetrate the black hole that appears to be surrounding any actual details on Verizon FIOS IPv6 deployment?
If you find the answer, you win the prize. I've tried shaking numerous trees (front-line customer service, my VZB sales person for $dayjob, other people I know who work at Verizon, etc...) to get an answer on this and each time I got different responses. I heard everything from trials being done somewhere in Florida (about a year ago, but Florida does me no good), to the rollout was on hold because the set-top boxes didn't work with it (wasn't about to explain dual-stack to them), to "Verizon has plenty of version 4 addresses, so there's no rush to deploy IPv6". More than one response included the caveat that "we haven't been trained on any IPv6 stuff yet", so I guess any sort of large-scale rollout is not in the immediate future. I don't fault the front-line customer service folks for this. If they don't know, they don't know. What I do find fault with is that the people the front-line reps can escalate to either don't know, won't tell, or won't ask their escalation points. Attempts to speak directly to an escalation point were met with "well, I can put a note in your account that you asked about it...". It's 2014. Comcast is kicking Verizon's butt at v6 deployment (I've told VZ reps that several times as well...). There really is no excuse for total silence from Verizon on this. I have a tunnel through HE and it works very well, but it would be great to have native v6 at home. jms
From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:streiner@cluebyfour.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 6:02 PM
If you find the answer, you win the prize.
Can the prize be the Verizon employees that should have been keeping us in the loop on this in a dunk tank ;)?
I've tried shaking numerous trees (front-line customer service, my VZB sales person for $dayjob, other people I know who work at Verizon, etc...) to get an answer on this and each time I got different responses.
Same story, I've tried many different avenues over the past couple of years with no luck. You'd think somebody on the list would be friends with a Verizon employee in the know they could take out and get drunk and wheedle something out of :). Or have sufficient business with Verizon to have enough clout to demand an answer <sigh>.
We have fios for some office locations and can't get jack out of our sales rep; just the same well it's being tested bs. It's as if the only people at VZ that know IPv6 went to the wireless side, where I can do native dual stack all day long on my phone, tablet and hotspot, but the Fios folks have absolutely no clue. It's really quite annoying. Even a wait 24 months would be better than nothing at all. -----Original Message----- From: Paul B. Henson [mailto:henson@acm.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 9:57 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Verizon FIOS IPv6? So I was curious, has anyone managed to penetrate the black hole that appears to be surrounding any actual details on Verizon FIOS IPv6 deployment? Their last official announcement indicated they would start deploying it in 2012, and clearly that didn't happen. I've been asking on and off for a couple of years, and never been able to get any actual answer as to when it might be available or why it is being so delayed. Comcast has www.comcast6.net, which evidently tells you when you're going to get it, if you don't *already* have it. From what I can tell, most large providers, if not already providing it, at least have some reasonable timeline as to their progress...
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:06 PM, David Hubbard <dhubbard@dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote:
We have fios for some office locations and can't get jack out of our sales rep; just the same well it's being tested bs. It's as if the only
... snip...
Fios folks have absolutely no clue. It's really quite annoying. Even a wait 24 months would be better than nothing at all.
I think the word you are looking for here is 'shameful', not 'annoying'.
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 10:13:38PM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:06 PM, David Hubbard <dhubbard@dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote:
We have fios for some office locations and can't get jack out of our sales rep; just the same well it's being tested bs. It's as if the only
... snip...
Fios folks have absolutely no clue. It's really quite annoying. Even a wait 24 months would be better than nothing at all.
I think the word you are looking for here is 'shameful', not 'annoying'.
The only luck I've had with IPV6 on FIOS is via he.net :( You would think in 2014 they would have their act together, even Comcast has deployed it pretty widely. -- Bryan G. Seitz
I've heard of folk in and around the NYC metro getting set up for v6 by escalating through their commercial account teams, or the field service managers who went out to their homes to supervise their early-adopter [X]GPON ONT installations. This isn't to say the process was particularly easy or fun for those involved, however there is a light at the end of the tunnel. It's not immediately clear the extent of configuration work needed behind the curtains -- whether routing and addressing needed to be set up in an ad hoc manner, or if there was merely a magic "allow v6 ethertype" checkbox in an OSS needing to be checked to make RAs start working, however I've heard various rumblings pointing at the latter. However you slice it, I agree their laid-back approach at implementation is shameful, and should be called out wherever possible. HTH, -a On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:06 PM, David Hubbard <dhubbard@dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote:
We have fios for some office locations and can't get jack out of our sales rep; just the same well it's being tested bs. It's as if the only
... snip...
Fios folks have absolutely no clue. It's really quite annoying. Even a wait 24 months would be better than nothing at all.
I think the word you are looking for here is 'shameful', not 'annoying'.
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Adam Rothschild <asr@latency.net> wrote:
I've heard of folk in and around the NYC metro getting set up for v6 by escalating through their commercial account teams, or the field
'commercial account teams' == business customers?
service managers who went out to their homes to supervise their early-adopter [X]GPON ONT installations. This isn't to say the
wow, sounds super scalable.
process was particularly easy or fun for those involved, however there is a light at the end of the tunnel.
ha! double joke!
It's not immediately clear the extent of configuration work needed behind the curtains -- whether routing and addressing needed to be set up in an ad hoc manner, or if there was merely a magic "allow v6 ethertype" checkbox in an OSS needing to be checked to make RAs start
if it's just some clicky thing in the OSS I'm betting 2yrs til the IT department gets that automated :(
working, however I've heard various rumblings pointing at the latter. However you slice it, I agree their laid-back approach at
'laid-back'... you sir, have a way with words.
implementation is shameful, and should be called out wherever possible.
yes :( it's nice that the Networx contract didn't require any ipv6 readiness...
HTH, -a
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:06 PM, David Hubbard <dhubbard@dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote:
We have fios for some office locations and can't get jack out of our sales rep; just the same well it's being tested bs. It's as if the only
... snip...
Fios folks have absolutely no clue. It's really quite annoying. Even a wait 24 months would be better than nothing at all.
I think the word you are looking for here is 'shameful', not 'annoying'.
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
I've heard of folk in and around the NYC metro getting set up for v6 by escalating through their commercial account teams, or the field
'commercial account teams' == business customers?
Sorry, yes, that is correct: one way to get IPv6 FIOS at the home is to escalate through your (701/VZB) account team. I should probably add that there was a real router plugged into the ethernet port on the ONT, given a lack of support in the ActionTec code ... but what self-respecting network geek uses those in the first place? :-) YMMV, etc., -a
On 1/7/14, 11:10 PM, "Adam Rothschild" <asr@latency.net> wrote:
I should probably add that there was a real router plugged into the ethernet port on the ONT, given a lack of support in the ActionTec code ...
Interestingly, I have one of the later-generation ActionTecs, and VZ pushed a software update to it at some point and it sprouted IPv6 config. https://plus.google.com/u/0/+WesleyGeorge/posts/hZR5nRgKyQ4 And no, clicking ³enable² doesn¹t do anything, least it didn¹t last time I fiddled with it. They¹ve at least updated this page from ³later in 2012² to ³starting in 2013² but clearly that¹s still not very helpful. http://www.verizon.com/Support/Residential/Internet/HighSpeed/General+Suppo rt/Top+Questions/QuestionsOne/ATLAS8742.htm Wes George Anything below this line has been added by my company¹s mail server, I have no control over it. ----------- This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, George, Wes wrote:
Interestingly, I have one of the later-generation ActionTecs, and VZ pushed a software update to it at some point and it sprouted IPv6 config.
I noticed the same thing on my router several months ago, but when I called to see if I could get IPv6 turned on for my account, no go. jms
The only major ISP that I seen so far that has rolled out is Comcast. Been probing the TW Cable people for months to see what their plans are for IPv6 in Ohio and all I have gotten is a million different stories. On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Justin M. Streiner <streiner@cluebyfour.org>wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, George, Wes wrote:
Interestingly, I have one of the later-generation ActionTecs, and VZ
pushed a software update to it at some point and it sprouted IPv6 config.
I noticed the same thing on my router several months ago, but when I called to see if I could get IPv6 turned on for my account, no go.
jms
On 1/8/14 9:34 AM, "Brian Henson" <marine64@gmail.com> wrote:
The only major ISP that I seen so far that has rolled out is Comcast. Been probing the TW Cable people for months to see what their plans are for IPv6 in Ohio and all I have gotten is a million different stories.
TWC Ohio (residential service): Real Soon Now. For what it's worth, AT&T also has a significant rollout on U-Verse. http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ I've read in some forums that there are pockets of FiOS users with IPv6 running. I've seen LLA on ActionTec modems. Something tells me that they will sneak up on us with a sudden deployment. Lee
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Justin M. Streiner <streiner@cluebyfour.org>wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, George, Wes wrote:
Interestingly, I have one of the later-generation ActionTecs, and VZ
pushed a software update to it at some point and it sprouted IPv6 config.
I noticed the same thing on my router several months ago, but when I called to see if I could get IPv6 turned on for my account, no go.
jms
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org> wrote:
I've read in some forums that there are pockets of FiOS users with IPv6 running. I've seen LLA on ActionTec modems. Something tells me that they will sneak up on us with a sudden deployment.
would be grand if they'd let folk know it's coming :) # tcpdump -n -i em0 ip6 tcpdump: listening on em0, link-type EN10MB especially for business customers who don't have moca and don't use the actioncrap...
My actiontec router has had that IPv6 page for a while now. I'm 20 minutes outside NYC. However when I enable it, I still don't get a broadband IPv6 address in the System Monitoring tab. On 1/8/2014 8:26 AM, George, Wes wrote:
On 1/7/14, 11:10 PM, "Adam Rothschild" <asr@latency.net> wrote:
I should probably add that there was a real router plugged into the ethernet port on the ONT, given a lack of support in the ActionTec code ... Interestingly, I have one of the later-generation ActionTecs, and VZ pushed a software update to it at some point and it sprouted IPv6 config.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+WesleyGeorge/posts/hZR5nRgKyQ4
And no, clicking ³enable² doesn¹t do anything, least it didn¹t last time I fiddled with it.
They¹ve at least updated this page from ³later in 2012² to ³starting in 2013² but clearly that¹s still not very helpful. http://www.verizon.com/Support/Residential/Internet/HighSpeed/General+Suppo rt/Top+Questions/QuestionsOne/ATLAS8742.htm
Wes George
Anything below this line has been added by my company¹s mail server, I have no control over it. -----------
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
-- Vlade Ristevski Network Manager IT Services Ramapo College (201)-684-6854
From: Adam Rothschild [mailto:asr@latency.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 8:10 PM
Sorry, yes, that is correct: one way to get IPv6 FIOS at the home is to escalate through your (701/VZB) account team.
Hmm, I actually have business FIOS at home (static IP highway robbery <grumble>), and have had no luck escalating requests for details on IPv6 through business support. Could you possibly provide more details on the process or appropriate contacts?
but what self-respecting network geek uses those in the first place? :-)
Damn straight. It's annoying they make us waste money on buying them in the first place 8-/. Although my brother-in-law did appreciate the donation of my actiontec paperweight to extend his consumer fios network to the other side of his house over coax and have better wireless coverage. Thanks.
* Christopher Morrow (morrowc.lists@gmail.com) wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Adam Rothschild <asr@latency.net> wrote:
I've heard of folk in and around the NYC metro getting set up for v6 by escalating through their commercial account teams, or the field
'commercial account teams' == business customers?
As a FIOS business customer, I can say that I've had no progress on that front, though I've bugged them about it often enough... Perhaps I shall try again though. I would truely love to hear from one of these folks in NYC who managed to get it...
implementation is shameful, and should be called out wherever possible.
yes :( it's nice that the Networx contract didn't require any ipv6 readiness...
There's a US government mandate for government public websites to support IPv6 and quite a few of those do- in some cases through Networx. I don't recall agencies complaining about the inability to get IPv6 for public websites via Networx either. Additionally, most of the services under the Networx contract are more traditional telecom services which don't particularly care what you run over them. As for having Networx require IPv6 support for all services- some of us tried, and while a nice idea, I doubt it would have lasted terribly long post-award even if it had been included for the few IP-based services which were part of the original contract. Sadly, having been involved in government contracting, it's amazing what happens when the vendor says "we want to provide $awesome, but we need you to waive this *one* little thing" and there isn't a mandate (afair...) for agencies to run IPv6 internally (tho they're supposed to be buying devices which *support* it). I will say that the more the agencies complain to GSA the highest the chance of something being done about it. Thanks, Stephen
You fared better than I did. I also am a Verizon Business customer, and when I called and inquired about ipv6 I was told that they didn't carry that channel. :) Andrew Fried andrew.fried@gmail.com On 1/7/14, 11:28 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Christopher Morrow (morrowc.lists@gmail.com) wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Adam Rothschild <asr@latency.net> wrote:
I've heard of folk in and around the NYC metro getting set up for v6 by escalating through their commercial account teams, or the field
'commercial account teams' == business customers?
As a FIOS business customer, I can say that I've had no progress on that front, though I've bugged them about it often enough... Perhaps I shall try again though. I would truely love to hear from one of these folks in NYC who managed to get it...
implementation is shameful, and should be called out wherever possible.
yes :( it's nice that the Networx contract didn't require any ipv6 readiness...
There's a US government mandate for government public websites to support IPv6 and quite a few of those do- in some cases through Networx. I don't recall agencies complaining about the inability to get IPv6 for public websites via Networx either. Additionally, most of the services under the Networx contract are more traditional telecom services which don't particularly care what you run over them.
As for having Networx require IPv6 support for all services- some of us tried, and while a nice idea, I doubt it would have lasted terribly long post-award even if it had been included for the few IP-based services which were part of the original contract. Sadly, having been involved in government contracting, it's amazing what happens when the vendor says "we want to provide $awesome, but we need you to waive this *one* little thing" and there isn't a mandate (afair...) for agencies to run IPv6 internally (tho they're supposed to be buying devices which *support* it).
I will say that the more the agencies complain to GSA the highest the chance of something being done about it.
Thanks,
Stephen
I've been barking at them for a couple years now, I never get much. They're good about staffing their front line support with flowchart monkeys. My internet facing device is constantly listening for any sort of indication that native IPv6 is starting up, but never hears anything. So I rock HE like many of you. It works pretty well, and I'm, guessing I get a lot more address space via HE than VZ would give me. On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Andrew Fried <andrew.fried@gmail.com> wrote:
You fared better than I did. I also am a Verizon Business customer, and when I called and inquired about ipv6 I was told that they didn't carry that channel. :)
Andrew Fried andrew.fried@gmail.com
On 1/7/14, 11:28 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Christopher Morrow (morrowc.lists@gmail.com) wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Adam Rothschild <asr@latency.net> wrote:
I've heard of folk in and around the NYC metro getting set up for v6 by escalating through their commercial account teams, or the field
'commercial account teams' == business customers?
As a FIOS business customer, I can say that I've had no progress on that front, though I've bugged them about it often enough... Perhaps I shall try again though. I would truely love to hear from one of these folks in NYC who managed to get it...
implementation is shameful, and should be called out wherever possible.
yes :( it's nice that the Networx contract didn't require any ipv6 readiness...
There's a US government mandate for government public websites to support IPv6 and quite a few of those do- in some cases through Networx. I don't recall agencies complaining about the inability to get IPv6 for public websites via Networx either. Additionally, most of the services under the Networx contract are more traditional telecom services which don't particularly care what you run over them.
As for having Networx require IPv6 support for all services- some of us tried, and while a nice idea, I doubt it would have lasted terribly long post-award even if it had been included for the few IP-based services which were part of the original contract. Sadly, having been involved in government contracting, it's amazing what happens when the vendor says "we want to provide $awesome, but we need you to waive this *one* little thing" and there isn't a mandate (afair...) for agencies to run IPv6 internally (tho they're supposed to be buying devices which *support* it).
I will say that the more the agencies complain to GSA the highest the chance of something being done about it.
Thanks,
Stephen
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, Ian Bowers wrote:
So I rock HE like many of you. It works pretty well, and I'm, guessing I get a lot more address space via HE than VZ would give me.
I have a tunnel through HE and it is solid. Verizon states on their "What is IPv6?" page that they will provide a /56 to customers. At least they fixed the typo that up until recently said that a /56 was 56 LANs, so at least that's a step in the right direction. My guesses for the foot-dragging, re: v6 deployment on FiOS: 1. Can't get their set-top boxes working on it yet. One customer service rep told me this. I didn't feel up to starting the whole "what's wrong with dual-stack?" argument. 2. Still working out how to update back-end provisioning systems. 3. Dealing with different vintages of premise routers (older Actiontecs don't support it), ONTs, and possibly aggregation routers. 4. Still developing M&Ps and training materials for provisioners and front-line customer service reps. 5. They haven't hit a critical mass of non-static customers bitching about performance problems due to LSN. 6. Layer 8-10 issues. I do know Verizon is a very siloed organization. VZO doesn't communicate much with VZW or VZB, and vice versa, which is a shame. v6 on my VZW 4G LTE phone just plain works. jms
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Andrew Fried <andrew.fried@gmail.com> wrote:
You fared better than I did. I also am a Verizon Business customer, and when I called and inquired about ipv6 I was told that they didn't carry that channel. :)
Andrew Fried andrew.fried@gmail.com
On 1/7/14, 11:28 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Christopher Morrow (morrowc.lists@gmail.com) wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Adam Rothschild <asr@latency.net> wrote:
I've heard of folk in and around the NYC metro getting set up for v6 by escalating through their commercial account teams, or the field
'commercial account teams' == business customers?
As a FIOS business customer, I can say that I've had no progress on that front, though I've bugged them about it often enough... Perhaps I shall try again though. I would truely love to hear from one of these folks in NYC who managed to get it...
implementation is shameful, and should be called out wherever possible.
yes :( it's nice that the Networx contract didn't require any ipv6 readiness...
There's a US government mandate for government public websites to support IPv6 and quite a few of those do- in some cases through Networx. I don't recall agencies complaining about the inability to get IPv6 for public websites via Networx either. Additionally, most of the services under the Networx contract are more traditional telecom services which don't particularly care what you run over them.
As for having Networx require IPv6 support for all services- some of us tried, and while a nice idea, I doubt it would have lasted terribly long post-award even if it had been included for the few IP-based services which were part of the original contract. Sadly, having been involved in government contracting, it's amazing what happens when the vendor says "we want to provide $awesome, but we need you to waive this *one* little thing" and there isn't a mandate (afair...) for agencies to run IPv6 internally (tho they're supposed to be buying devices which *support* it).
I will say that the more the agencies complain to GSA the highest the chance of something being done about it.
Thanks,
Stephen
On Jan 8, 2014, at 17:03, Justin M. Streiner <streiner@cluebyfour.org> wrote:
I have a tunnel through HE and it is solid.
I'm on Verizon FIOS (70/30 Mbit/s), and set up my ActionTec router to allow tunneling traffic through, but am using my Apple TimeCapsule base station (3 years old) for the actual IPv6 tunneling. I've been amazed how rock-solid the IPv6 has been. All traffic between my home and work workplace go over IPv6, and using X11 etc, I'm quite sensitive to latency or packet loss. To my surprise, generally the tunneled IPv6 performs (far) better than IPv4: --- XXXX.gnat.com ping6 statistics --- 20 packets transmitted, 20 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 15.204/16.911/18.721/0.941 ms This really is good latency, especially considering the tunnel. Note that my MacBook Pro is using a WiFi connection, adding a millisecond or two as well. --- XXXX ping statistics --- 20 packets transmitted, 20 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 26.280/28.259/31.289/1.254 ms This is fine, but not great. The Apple Base station does NAT-ing, but did the same for my previous DSL link to Bway, which had <16ms ping times, so I can rule out NAT-related delays. At this point in time I'm not holding my breath for VZ to do anything to accommodate IPv6 or provide good routing, and know that if, for my company or otherwise, I'll have an option to chose HE, I will. -Geert PS. Today I changed my FIOS autopay method with VZ (as somehow they ignored the info I gave at signup) and got notified it would take up to 60 days (!!!) for the changes to take effect. Clearly, VZ is (and always will be) a phone company.
* Geert Bosch (bosch@adacore.com) wrote:
On Jan 8, 2014, at 17:03, Justin M. Streiner <streiner@cluebyfour.org> wrote:
I have a tunnel through HE and it is solid. [...] --- XXXX.gnat.com ping6 statistics --- 20 packets transmitted, 20 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 15.204/16.911/18.721/0.941 ms
This really is good latency, especially considering the tunnel. Note that my MacBook Pro is using a WiFi connection, adding a millisecond or two as well.
--- XXXX ping statistics --- 20 packets transmitted, 20 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 26.280/28.259/31.289/1.254 ms
I'm really curious how *that* is working out. My IPv6 tunnel is only a ms or two slower than IPv4 (and it's all sub-15ms), but there is something very odd if the tunnel is *faster*. Have you tried working out where the difference is coming from (eg: mtr or similar)?
This is fine, but not great. The Apple Base station does NAT-ing, but did the same for my previous DSL link to Bway, which had <16ms ping times, so I can rule out NAT-related delays. At this point in time I'm not holding my breath for VZ to do anything to accommodate IPv6 or provide good routing, and know that if, for my company or otherwise, I'll have an option to chose HE, I will.
Spent another hour with the FIOS folks last night and, while the tech folks knew what IPv6 was, they weren't able to provide any info about timelines or, really, much of anything.
PS. Today I changed my FIOS autopay method with VZ (as somehow they ignored the info I gave at signup) and got notified it would take up to 60 days (!!!) for the changes to take effect. Clearly, VZ is (and always will be) a phone company.
Sadly, Verizon is *both* a phone company and an Internet company- it's just that FIOS is part of the phone company half. Verizon Enterprise has supported IPv6 for a number of years and we were able to turn it up at my last job w/o too much trouble, once I convinced the necessary folks that we should ask for it. Thanks, Stephen
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 08:41:30 -0500, Stephen Frost said:
I'm really curious how *that* is working out. My IPv6 tunnel is only a ms or two slower than IPv4 (and it's all sub-15ms), but there is something very odd if the tunnel is *faster*. Have you tried working out where the difference is coming from (eg: mtr or similar)?
May be different routing based on where the tunnel leads? I recently got Comcast residential native IPv6 working (sort of - bricked a Belkin reflashing dd-wrt, but plugging the laptop into the cablemodem directly does dhcpv6 just fine). IPv6 to work is about 30% faster than IPv4, because cogent routes v6 for us better: 4 pos-1-4-0-0-cr01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net (2001:558:0:f7c5::1) [AS7922] 29.282 ms pos-1-2-0-0-cr01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net (2001:558:0:f6cd::1) [AS7922] 28.307 ms pos-1-4-0-0-cr01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net (2001:558:0:f7c5::1) [AS7922] 29.292 ms 5 * * be-12-pe04.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net (2001:558:0:f534::2) [AS7922] 26.520 ms 6 2001:559::16a (2001:559::16a) [AS7922] 61.890 ms 52.396 ms 2001:559::176 (2001:559::176) [AS7922] 60.563 ms 7 2001:550:2:2f::a (2001:550:2:2f::a) [AS174] 58.846 ms 54.715 ms 54.692 ms 8 isb-border.xe-5-0-0.155.cns.ipv6.vt.edu (2607:b400:f0:20::5) [AS1312] 46.999 ms 44.160 ms 43.343 ms .. 4 68.86.94.29 (68.86.94.29) [AS7922] 35.819 ms 68.86.91.149 (68.86.91.149) [AS7922] 34.560 ms * 5 * * * 6 te0-0-0-19.ccr21.atl02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.10.233) [AS174] 81.795 ms 77.678 ms 82.887 ms 7 be2053.mpd22.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.145) [AS174] 83.760 ms be2051.ccr22.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.0.161) [AS174] 88.056 ms 87.991 ms 8 be2169.ccr22.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.31.98) [AS174] 89.785 ms 102.779 ms 106.434 ms 9 be2177.ccr41.iad02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.41.205) [AS174] 85.708 ms be2113.ccr41.iad02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.6.169) [AS174] 82.884 ms be2176.ccr41.iad02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.41.53) [AS174] 82.888 ms 10 38.127.193.146 (38.127.193.146) [AS174] 87.885 ms 91.767 ms 96.178 ms 11 isb-border.xe-5-0-0.155.cns.vt.edu (192.70.187.149) [AS1312] 98.993 ms 88.320 ms 89.401 ms Apparently, going Blacksburg-ashburn-blacksburg is a lot faster than blacksburg-ashburn-atlanta-DC-blacbksburg. Who'd thunk it? :)
* Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu) wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 08:41:30 -0500, Stephen Frost said:
I'm really curious how *that* is working out. My IPv6 tunnel is only a ms or two slower than IPv4 (and it's all sub-15ms), but there is something very odd if the tunnel is *faster*. Have you tried working out where the difference is coming from (eg: mtr or similar)?
May be different routing based on where the tunnel leads?
Sure, entirely possible, but I'd be investigating into why because clearly there's a better ipv4 route than that being used, if ipv6 tunneled over ipv4 is faster. A bit of difference is fine, but it sounded like more than 'a bit'.
I recently got Comcast residential native IPv6 working (sort of - bricked a Belkin reflashing dd-wrt, but plugging the laptop into the cablemodem directly does dhcpv6 just fine). IPv6 to work is about 30% faster than IPv4, because cogent routes v6 for us better:
Fun times. Neat to hear of folks getting native IPv6 tho.
4 pos-1-4-0-0-cr01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net (2001:558:0:f7c5::1) [AS7922] 29.282 ms pos-1-2-0-0-cr01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net (2001:558:0:f6cd::1) [AS7922] 28.307 ms pos-1-4-0-0-cr01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net (2001:558:0:f7c5::1) [AS7922] 29.292 ms 5 * * be-12-pe04.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net (2001:558:0:f534::2) [AS7922] 26.520 ms 6 2001:559::16a (2001:559::16a) [AS7922] 61.890 ms 52.396 ms 2001:559::176 (2001:559::176) [AS7922] 60.563 ms 7 2001:550:2:2f::a (2001:550:2:2f::a) [AS174] 58.846 ms 54.715 ms 54.692 ms 8 isb-border.xe-5-0-0.155.cns.ipv6.vt.edu (2607:b400:f0:20::5) [AS1312] 46.999 ms 44.160 ms 43.343 ms ..
4 68.86.94.29 (68.86.94.29) [AS7922] 35.819 ms 68.86.91.149 (68.86.91.149) [AS7922] 34.560 ms * 5 * * * 6 te0-0-0-19.ccr21.atl02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.10.233) [AS174] 81.795 ms 77.678 ms 82.887 ms 7 be2053.mpd22.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.3.145) [AS174] 83.760 ms be2051.ccr22.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.0.161) [AS174] 88.056 ms 87.991 ms 8 be2169.ccr22.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.31.98) [AS174] 89.785 ms 102.779 ms 106.434 ms 9 be2177.ccr41.iad02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.41.205) [AS174] 85.708 ms be2113.ccr41.iad02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.6.169) [AS174] 82.884 ms be2176.ccr41.iad02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.41.53) [AS174] 82.888 ms 10 38.127.193.146 (38.127.193.146) [AS174] 87.885 ms 91.767 ms 96.178 ms 11 isb-border.xe-5-0-0.155.cns.vt.edu (192.70.187.149) [AS1312] 98.993 ms 88.320 ms 89.401 ms
Apparently, going Blacksburg-ashburn-blacksburg is a lot faster than blacksburg-ashburn-atlanta-DC-blacbksburg. Who'd thunk it? :)
68.86.94.29 appears to be Georgia, not Ashburn..?- so where is it going to Ashburn and, probably more importantly, why? That's more than a little bit out of your way to go from Blacksburg to Blacksburg... Does most of your IPv4 traffic flow through Georgia? Seems like that might be the real issue here, going Blacksburg-Atlanta-DC-Ashburn-Blacksburg Curiously, doing my own tests from here (not far outside Ashburn): IPv4 to VT: ~21ms IPv4 to Ashburn IPv6 gateway: ~7ms IPv6 to VT: ~18ms All going through DC to Ashburn, unsurprisingly. It's slightly faster, as it turns out, but I'm not going to quibble over 3ms. Have to admit, not sure I could stand 100ms latency between work & home. Thanks, Stephen
On Jan 9, 2014, at 14:32, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
Sure, entirely possible, but I'd be investigating into why because clearly there's a better ipv4 route than that being used, if ipv6 tunneled over ipv4 is faster. A bit of difference is fine, but it sounded like more than 'a bit'.
Of course it's a routing issue. At AdaCore (AS32019), we have very good connectivity with level3 (<2ms), but the Verizon/Level3 path seems variable and generally slow. Here are the relevant bits. Note that I've seen lots of different routings for IPv4 traffic, routing over Cogent, Alter.net, Above.net, but not so much when using the HE tunnel. Of course, I could just ascribe this to NSA traffic redirection/inspection, or some traffic engineering by a New Jersey governor, but I guess VZ might have their own reasons for subpar routing. It always seems as if VZ is avoiding L3. The Hurricane Electric tunnel server I'm using is 209.51.161.14. kwai:~%ping -i0.2 -c20 209.51.161.14 ... --- 209.51.161.14 ping statistics --- 20 packets transmitted, 20 received, 0% packet loss, time 3819ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.604/1.763/2.497/0.205 ms potomac:~%ping -i0.2 -c20 209.51.161.14 ... --- 209.51.161.14 ping statistics --- 20 packets transmitted, 20 packets received, 0.0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 6.832/8.040/9.152/0.720 ms The sum of these times is just 10ms. Now, look at the resulting time for my IPv4 tunnel endpoint: kwai:~%ping -i0.2 -c20 72.69.184.141 ... --- 72.69.184.141 ping statistics --- 20 packets transmitted, 20 received, 0% packet loss, time 3817ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 22.843/25.422/27.725/1.538 ms That's where the difference is. With trace routes: kwai:~%traceroute 209.51.161.14 traceroute to 209.51.161.14 (209.51.161.14), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 jordan.gnat.com (205.232.38.200) 5.402 ms 5.483 ms 5.535 ms 2 towerstream-gw.gnat.com (69.38.252.177) 2.113 ms 2.119 ms 2.159 ms 3 g4-0.cr.nyc1.ny.towerstream.com (69.38.244.13) 2.253 ms 2.260 ms 2.296 ms 4 br.nyc0203.ny.towerstream.net (69.38.138.110) 3.181 ms 3.190 ms 3.209 ms 5 64.125.173.225 (64.125.173.225) 3.299 ms 3.308 ms 3.394 ms 6 xe-1-2-1.er2.lga5.us.above.net (64.125.31.166) 4.224 ms 2.113 ms 2.123 ms 7 core1.nyc4.he.net (198.32.118.57) 3.733 ms 10.968 ms 10.960 ms 8 tserv1.nyc4.he.net (209.51.161.14) 2.088 ms 1.694 ms 1.870 ms kwai:~%traceroute 72.69.184.141 traceroute to 72.69.184.141 (72.69.184.141), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 jordan.gnat.com (205.232.38.200) 5.888 ms 6.295 ms 6.442 ms 2 towerstream-gw.gnat.com (69.38.252.177) 2.062 ms 2.066 ms 2.108 ms 3 g4-0.cr.nyc1.ny.towerstream.com (69.38.244.13) 2.201 ms 2.206 ms 2.319 ms 4 xe-4-0-1.edge4.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.28.130.57) 3.124 ms 3.129 ms 3.156 ms 5 vlan70.csw2.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.155.126) 3.248 ms vlan60.csw1.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.155.62) 3.299 ms vlan80.csw3.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.155.190) 3.304 ms 6 ae-81-81.ebr1.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.134.73) 4.702 ms ae-62-62.ebr2.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.148.33) 2.372 ms ae-81-81.ebr1.NewYork1.Level3.net (4.69.134.73) 2.392 ms 7 4.69.201.42 (4.69.201.42) 2.377 ms ae-45-45.ebr2.NewYork2.Level3.net (4.69.141.22) 2.366 ms ae-47-47.ebr2.NewYork2.Level3.net (4.69.201.34) 2.407 ms 8 ae-1-51.edge2.NewYork2.Level3.net (4.69.138.195) 2.369 ms 2.518 ms 2.529 ms 9 po6-20G.ar6.NYC1.gblx.net (208.51.134.113) 18.468 ms 18.474 ms 18.655 ms 10 0.ae11.BR3.NYC4.ALTER.NET (204.255.168.193) 20.372 ms 19.718 ms 17.999 ms 11 * * * 12 * * * 13 * * * 14 * * * 15 * * * 16 * * * 17 * * * 18 * * *C^Cpotomac:%traceroute 209.51.161.14 traceroute to 209.51.161.14 (209.51.161.14), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 wireless_broadband_router (192.168.1.1) 1.238 ms 0.852 ms 0.805 ms 2 l100.nycmny-vfttp-102.verizon-gni.net (71.190.186.1) 5.275 ms 5.189 ms 5.732 ms 3 g1-15-4-1.nycmny-lcr-22.verizon-gni.net (130.81.218.160) 9.572 ms 7.315 ms 8.120 ms 4 so-3-1-0-0.ny5030-bb-rtr2.verizon-gni.net (130.81.199.12) 7.135 ms ae2-0.ny5030-bb-rtr1.verizon-gni.net (130.81.199.178) 7.228 ms so-5-0-0-0.ny5030-bb-rtr1.verizon-gni.net (130.81.22.18) 7.047 ms 5 0.xe-10-0-0.br3.nyc4.alter.net (152.63.24.109) 7.925 ms 0.xe-11-3-0.br2.nyc4.alter.net (152.63.23.137) 7.892 ms 0.xe-10-0-0.br3.nyc4.alter.net (152.63.24.109) 7.114 ms 6 204.255.168.190 (204.255.168.190) 7.497 ms 10.291 ms 8.601 ms 7 hurricane-electric-llc-new-york.tengigabitethernet1-3.ar5.nyc1.gblx.net (64.209.92.98) 8.228 ms 7.101 ms 17.883 ms 8 tserv1.nyc4.he.net (209.51.161.14) 8.962 ms 8.231 ms 6.681 ms potomac:%traceroute kwai.gnat.com traceroute to kwai.gnat.com (205.232.38.4), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 wireless_broadband_router (192.168.1.1) 4.037 ms 2.140 ms 2.572 ms 2 l100.nycmny-vfttp-102.verizon-gni.net (71.190.186.1) 6.554 ms 7.270 ms 7.757 ms 3 g0-14-3-3.nycmny-lcr-22.verizon-gni.net (130.81.104.44) 11.689 ms 9.961 ms 9.519 ms 4 so-6-1-0-0.ny5030-bb-rtr2.verizon-gni.net (130.81.151.224) 6.582 ms ae0-0.ny5030-bb-rtr2.verizon-gni.net (130.81.209.126) 7.804 ms ae4-0.ny5030-bb-rtr1.verizon-gni.net (130.81.163.224) 7.244 ms 5 0.xe-10-1-0.br1.nyc1.alter.net (152.63.18.225) 8.677 ms 8.347 ms 8.810 ms 6 te-7-3-0.edge2.newyork2.level3.net (4.68.111.137) 27.316 ms ae11.edge2.newyork.level3.net (4.68.62.41) 29.472 ms 28.588 ms 7 vlan51.ebr1.newyork2.level3.net (4.69.138.222) 25.019 ms vlan52.ebr2.newyork2.level3.net (4.69.138.254) 23.100 ms vlan51.ebr1.newyork2.level3.net (4.69.138.222) 23.718 ms 8 ae-48-48.ebr2.newyork1.level3.net (4.69.201.49) 23.335 ms ae-46-46.ebr1.newyork1.level3.net (4.69.201.41) 24.846 ms 4.69.201.37 (4.69.201.37) 25.430 ms 9 ae-62-62.csw1.newyork1.level3.net (4.69.148.34) 24.207 ms ae-92-92.csw4.newyork1.level3.net (4.69.148.46) 24.709 ms ae-82-82.csw3.newyork1.level3.net (4.69.148.42) 27.682 ms 10 ae-2-70.edge4.newyork1.level3.net (4.69.155.84) 23.184 ms 22.921 ms ae-4-90.edge4.newyork1.level3.net (4.69.155.210) 25.784 ms 11 bandcon.edge4.newyork1.level3.net (4.28.130.58) 8.355 ms 8.672 ms 8.877 ms 12 e1-1.cr.nyc0007.c.ny.towerstream.net (69.38.231.173) 27.119 ms 25.984 ms 26.617 ms 13 jordan-towerstream.gnat.com (69.38.252.178) 28.139 ms 29.953 ms 29.601 ms 14 kwai.gnat.com (205.232.38.4) 28.848 ms 26.241 ms 28.212 ms
On Thursday, January 09, 2014 12:03:13 AM Justin M. Streiner wrote:
My guesses for the foot-dragging, re: v6 deployment on FiOS: 1. Can't get their set-top boxes working on it yet. One customer service rep told me this. I didn't feel up to starting the whole "what's wrong with dual-stack?" argument.
Well, typically, linear Tv services are ran in their own VLAN and on RFC 1918 space. So in essence, they can start deploying IPv6 for the Internet VLAN (I'm not claiming to know their network design, just speaking generally) while they figure out how to get their STB's supporting IPv6. The majority of STB's support neither IGMPv3 nor IPv6, for the same reason. The manufacturers don't see the point, and the operators who buy from them don't see the need to put them on the spot (which is all bad). I could see an issue where the STB also has some OTT content capability (like VoD or cloud-based DVR, e.t.c.), and if the servers pumping that content out are not part of the walled- garden, NAT44 would be needed to bring that content down to an STB that has an RFC 1918 address driving it. In such a case, supporting IPv6 on the STB sooner rather than later alleviates pressures associated with NAT44. So lack of IPv6 support in the STB is not a deal-breaking reason, IMHO, since users are generally using IPv6 on laptops, desktops, smart phones, tablets, gaming consoles, OTT services, Tv's, media streamers, e.t.c., which typically fall under the Internet VLAN, i.e., aren't in some walled- garden. Mark.
From: Ian Bowers [mailto:iggdawg@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 5:31 AM
indication that native IPv6 is starting up, but never hears anything. So I rock HE like many of you. It works pretty well, and I'm, guessing I get a lot more address space via HE than VZ would give me.
I don't remember where I saw it, I believe it was on an official Verizon page, but it said something about giving out /56's to their business static IP customers, guess they want to be sure not to run out ;). HE I believe gives out /64's? The cynic in me believes they are intentionally delaying it to prop up their ridiculously high margins on IPv4 static addresses. Right now I'm paying $20/month extra for an additional four for a total of five on my account.
HE will give you five /64's and you can also get a /48 if you need more for one end point. The service works flawlessly; much more than can be said for VZW. I run it from DD-WRT-based router at home and have several office locations using it via Cisco gear. Would still greatly prefer native though to avoid the messier setup, throughput (although HE is very good on that front too), latency, etc. -----Original Message----- From: Paul B. Henson [mailto:henson@acm.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 8:29 PM To: 'Ian Bowers' Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Verizon FIOS IPv6? I don't remember where I saw it, I believe it was on an official Verizon page, but it said something about giving out /56's to their business static IP customers, guess they want to be sure not to run out ;). HE I believe gives out /64's? The cynic in me believes they are intentionally delaying it to prop up their ridiculously high margins on IPv4 static addresses. Right now I'm paying $20/month extra for an additional four for a total of five on my account.
On Jan 8, 2014, at 18:27 , David Hubbard <dhubbard@dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote:
HE will give you five /64's and you can also get a /48 if you need more for one end point. The service works flawlessly; much more than can be said for VZW. I run it from DD-WRT-based router at home and have several office locations using it via Cisco gear. Would still greatly prefer native though to avoid the messier setup, throughput (although HE is very good on that front too), latency, etc.
To clarify, you get 2 /64s per tunnel... One for the tunnel itself and one for your site. You can also get an additional /48 per tunnel just by requesting it. Owen
-----Original Message----- From: Paul B. Henson [mailto:henson@acm.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 8:29 PM To: 'Ian Bowers' Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Verizon FIOS IPv6?
I don't remember where I saw it, I believe it was on an official Verizon page, but it said something about giving out /56's to their business static IP customers, guess they want to be sure not to run out ;). HE I believe gives out /64's?
The cynic in me believes they are intentionally delaying it to prop up their ridiculously high margins on IPv4 static addresses. Right now I'm paying $20/month extra for an additional four for a total of five on my account.
participants (17)
-
Adam Rothschild -
Andrew Fried -
Brian Henson -
Bryan Seitz -
Christopher Morrow -
David Hubbard -
Geert Bosch -
George, Wes -
Ian Bowers -
Justin M. Streiner -
Lee Howard -
Mark Tinka -
Owen DeLong -
Paul B. Henson -
Stephen Frost -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
Vlade Ristevski