another tilt at the Verizon FIOS IPv6 windmill
I think it's been about a year and a half since I last looked (and cried) at the status of FIOS IPv6. As far as I can tell, there's been no new official news since 2013. We're deploying IPv6 at the university I work at, so IPv6 at home is moving from "wish I had it to play with" towards "need to have it to work from home". So it seems I either cancel my fios and go with business class cable (I live in Time Warner territory and it looks like they're good to go with IPv6) or set up a tunnel with HE. Or pray Google fiber comes to my neck of the woods. Any new rumors floating around? Any Verizon employees interested in posting anonymously and explaining what on earth is going on inside the company? Any secret phone numbers to call to get in on an alpha/beta test in the So Cal area ;)? If nothing else, it always feels better to hear other people say how ridiculous this is too <sigh> :). Thanks...
On Sunday, July 12, 2015, Paul B. Henson <henson@acm.org> wrote:
I think it's been about a year and a half since I last looked (and cried) at the status of FIOS IPv6. As far as I can tell, there's been no new official news since 2013. We're deploying IPv6 at the university I work at, so IPv6 at home is moving from "wish I had it to play with" towards "need to have it to work from home". So it seems I either cancel my fios and go with business class cable (I live in Time Warner territory and it looks like they're good to go with IPv6) or set up a tunnel with HE. Or pray Google fiber comes to my neck of the woods.
Any new rumors floating around? Any Verizon employees interested in posting anonymously and explaining what on earth is going on inside the company? Any secret phone numbers to call to get in on an alpha/beta test in the So Cal area ;)?
If nothing else, it always feels better to hear other people say how ridiculous this is too <sigh> :).
Thanks...
Yes, move your business to TWC. TWC has a proven v6 deployment and is actively engaged in the community, as where vz Fios is not. Business only understand $ CB
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:32:33PM -0700, Ca By wrote:
Yes, move your business to TWC. TWC has a proven v6 deployment and is actively engaged in the community, as where vz Fios is not.
Business only understand $
Yah, cheap bastards :). I've got 50/50 fios right now; TWC can match the downstream but it looks like the upstream maxes out at 20 :(. At least for standard business internet, looks like their "Dedicated Internet Access" can be had at up to 10G. Arg, no prices for anything online though. I'd really hate to lose my upstream and I don't think I want to know how much DIA costs ;). I'm paying $125 for 50/50 with 5 static IPs right now. And I'm actually pretty happy with it other than the dead silence regarding IPv6. I suppose the average "business" user doesn't even know what IPv6 is <sigh>, and Verizon probably doesn't care if they lose a handful of techies :(. What has Frontier done about IPv6 in the fios territories they've already purchased? Assuming the deal goes though I'll be a Frontier customer by this time next year...
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 17:32:33 -0400, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, move your business to TWC. TWC has a proven v6 deployment and is actively engaged in the community, as where vz Fios is not.
Yes, because TWC-BC's IPv6 support is stellar. Sorry, I misspelled "non-existent". Their "DIA" (metro-e) stuff, *might*, but I doubt it.
On 7/13/15, 3:43 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Ricky Beam" <nanog-bounces@nanog.org on behalf of jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 17:32:33 -0400, Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, move your business to TWC. TWC has a proven v6 deployment and is actively engaged in the community, as where vz Fios is not.
Yes, because TWC-BC's IPv6 support is stellar. Sorry, I misspelled "non-existent".
Business Class DOCSIS customers get a prefix automatically (unless you provide your own gateway and DHCPv6 isn¹t enabled). Since it¹s dynamic, it might change; working on providing stable prefixes. http://www.timewarnercable.com/en/support/internet/topics/ipv6.html
Their "DIA" (metro-e) stuff, *might*, but I doubt it.
Does, but since it requires BGP or static route configuration, you have to ask. Lee
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:20:11 -0400, Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org> wrote:
Business Class DOCSIS customers get a prefix automatically (unless you provide your own gateway and DHCPv6 isn¹t enabled).
I looked last night at the office in Cary, NC. NO RAs are seen on the link coming from the Ubee (bridged) providing our dynamic/DOCSIS connection. Without an RA, nothing will attempt IPv6. (I've not checked the one in Raleigh that's also a hotspot) Residential? sure, there's lot of v6 there -- has been for over a year. But as I'm an Earthlink customer, and those morons cannot be bothered to give TWC one of their *5* UNUSED /32's, all I get is: (IA_PD IAID:327681 T1:0 T2:0 (status code no prefixes)) --Ricky
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:20:11 -0400, Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org> wrote:
Business Class DOCSIS customers get a prefix automatically (unless you provide your own gateway and DHCPv6 isn¹t enabled).
doesn't the last paranthetical here
I looked last night at the office in Cary, NC. NO RAs are seen on the link coming from the Ubee (bridged) providing our dynamic/DOCSIS connection. Without an RA, nothing will attempt IPv6.
mean that your UBee has to do dhcpv6? (or the downstream thingy from the UBee has to do dhcpv6?)
(I've not checked the one in Raleigh that's also a hotspot)
Residential? sure, there's lot of v6 there -- has been for over a year. But as I'm an Earthlink customer, and those morons cannot be bothered to give TWC one of their *5* UNUSED /32's, all I get is: (IA_PD IAID:327681 T1:0 T2:0 (status code no prefixes))
--Ricky
On 7/17/15, 6:25 AM, "Christopher Morrow" <christopher.morrow@gmail.com on behalf of morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:20:11 -0400, Lee Howard <Lee@asgard.org> wrote:
Business Class DOCSIS customers get a prefix automatically (unless you provide your own gateway and DHCPv6 isn¹t enabled).
doesn't the last paranthetical here
I looked last night at the office in Cary, NC. NO RAs are seen on the link coming from the Ubee (bridged) providing our dynamic/DOCSIS connection. Without an RA, nothing will attempt IPv6.
mean that your UBee has to do dhcpv6? (or the downstream thingy from the UBee has to do dhcpv6?)
Yes. I should have said that there are some modems that don’t support IPv6, and a few that should-but-don’t-properly-yet. Ricky and I have corresponded privately. Lee
(I've not checked the one in Raleigh that's also a hotspot)
Residential? sure, there's lot of v6 there -- has been for over a year. But as I'm an Earthlink customer, and those morons cannot be bothered to give TWC one of their *5* UNUSED /32's, all I get is: (IA_PD IAID:327681 T1:0 T2:0 (status code no prefixes))
--Ricky
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:25:26 -0400, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
mean that your UBee has to do dhcpv6? (or the downstream thingy from the UBee has to do dhcpv6?)
The Ubee "router" is in bridge mode. Customers have ZERO access to the thing, even when it is running in routed mode. So I have no idea what it's trying to do. All I can say is no RAs are coming from it (through it/whatever) It *could* be it's blocking it -- it's multicast, so who knows what it's doing with it. Without RAs, nothing connected to it will even attempt IPv6 -- the RA being the indicator to use DHCP or not, and who's the router. And further, when I tell my Cisco 1841 to do DHCP anyway, I get no answer. So, the blanket statement that "it's ready" isn't true.
Ricky Beam schreef op 18-7-2015 om 1:14:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:25:26 -0400, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
mean that your UBee has to do dhcpv6? (or the downstream thingy from the UBee has to do dhcpv6?)
The Ubee "router" is in bridge mode. Customers have ZERO access to the thing, even when it is running in routed mode. So I have no idea what it's trying to do. All I can say is no RAs are coming from it (through it/whatever) It *could* be it's blocking it -- it's multicast, so who knows what it's doing with it. Without RAs, nothing connected to it will even attempt IPv6 -- the RA being the indicator to use DHCP or not, and who's the router.
And further, when I tell my Cisco 1841 to do DHCP anyway, I get no answer.
So, the blanket statement that "it's ready" isn't true. For a point of interest, the Ubee 320 and 321 wireless routers/modems are in use by Ziggo in the Netherlands.
Although they've rolled back the 320 modems to a older firmware, the 321 is still active on their IPv6 rollout. The problems were not strictly related to Ipv6 perse, but the newer firmware broken Voice on these all-the -things-in-one devices. The 321 appears to be unaffected and is still active, although in just a few regions at this point of the rollout. What's very specific about this rollout in relation to the above, is that Ziggo is currently only supporting IPv6 with the Ubee in router mode (with the wifi hotspot). The good news is that it also operates a DHCP-PD server so that you can connect your own router to the Ubee and still get IPv6 routed to you out of the /56 allocated to the customer. For now, all the customers with the Ubee in bridge mode are SOL. It's not clear what the reason is, but Ubee in bridge mode with IPv6 is listed on the road map. If that's intentional policy or that the firmware isn't ready yet is not clear at this point. Regards, Seth
I had to beat up on AT&T quite a bit, but instead of letting them "make notes", escalate to tier-2 because you can't reach work. Explain that you must have IPv6 to reach work to the tier-2. If they won't help demand to be escalated further. Your time on the phone costs them money. On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Seth Mos <seth.mos@dds.nl> wrote:
Ricky Beam schreef op 18-7-2015 om 1:14:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:25:26 -0400, Christopher Morrow <
morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
mean that your UBee has to do dhcpv6? (or the downstream thingy from the UBee has to do dhcpv6?)
The Ubee "router" is in bridge mode. Customers have ZERO access to the thing, even when it is running in routed mode. So I have no idea what it's trying to do. All I can say is no RAs are coming from it (through it/whatever) It *could* be it's blocking it -- it's multicast, so who knows what it's doing with it. Without RAs, nothing connected to it will even attempt IPv6 -- the RA being the indicator to use DHCP or not, and who's the router.
And further, when I tell my Cisco 1841 to do DHCP anyway, I get no answer.
So, the blanket statement that "it's ready" isn't true.
For a point of interest, the Ubee 320 and 321 wireless routers/modems are in use by Ziggo in the Netherlands.
Although they've rolled back the 320 modems to a older firmware, the 321 is still active on their IPv6 rollout. The problems were not strictly related to Ipv6 perse, but the newer firmware broken Voice on these all-the -things-in-one devices.
The 321 appears to be unaffected and is still active, although in just a few regions at this point of the rollout.
What's very specific about this rollout in relation to the above, is that Ziggo is currently only supporting IPv6 with the Ubee in router mode (with the wifi hotspot). The good news is that it also operates a DHCP-PD server so that you can connect your own router to the Ubee and still get IPv6 routed to you out of the /56 allocated to the customer.
For now, all the customers with the Ubee in bridge mode are SOL. It's not clear what the reason is, but Ubee in bridge mode with IPv6 is listed on the road map. If that's intentional policy or that the firmware isn't ready yet is not clear at this point.
Regards, Seth
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Andrew Kirch <trelane@trelane.net> wrote:
I had to beat up on AT&T quite a bit, but instead of letting them "make notes", escalate to tier-2 because you can't reach work. Explain that you must have IPv6 to reach work to the tier-2. If they won't help demand to be escalated further. Your time on the phone costs them money.
it's fun to screw up their ARPU, but really... in the end, if they don't want to be helpful to your cause / the intertubes, then why contnue to give them duckets? i don't see any hope for VZ nn this, sadly... and I bet ATT is taking it's time doing something useful as well, because 'telco', and because they have enough v4 that they don't HAVE to do anything yet. (they can still roll out territories with v4 for a long while to come) spend your money on providers that will do what you want... Also it's good to recognize that your single link move from ATT -> comcast isn't going to move the needle at ATT as far as 'gosh we really should care about this now!' -chris
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Seth Mos <seth.mos@dds.nl> wrote:
Ricky Beam schreef op 18-7-2015 om 1:14:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:25:26 -0400, Christopher Morrow <
morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
mean that your UBee has to do dhcpv6? (or the downstream thingy from the UBee has to do dhcpv6?)
The Ubee "router" is in bridge mode. Customers have ZERO access to the thing, even when it is running in routed mode. So I have no idea what it's trying to do. All I can say is no RAs are coming from it (through it/whatever) It *could* be it's blocking it -- it's multicast, so who knows what it's doing with it. Without RAs, nothing connected to it will even attempt IPv6 -- the RA being the indicator to use DHCP or not, and who's the router.
And further, when I tell my Cisco 1841 to do DHCP anyway, I get no answer.
So, the blanket statement that "it's ready" isn't true.
For a point of interest, the Ubee 320 and 321 wireless routers/modems are in use by Ziggo in the Netherlands.
Although they've rolled back the 320 modems to a older firmware, the 321 is still active on their IPv6 rollout. The problems were not strictly related to Ipv6 perse, but the newer firmware broken Voice on these all-the -things-in-one devices.
The 321 appears to be unaffected and is still active, although in just a few regions at this point of the rollout.
What's very specific about this rollout in relation to the above, is that Ziggo is currently only supporting IPv6 with the Ubee in router mode (with the wifi hotspot). The good news is that it also operates a DHCP-PD server so that you can connect your own router to the Ubee and still get IPv6 routed to you out of the /56 allocated to the customer.
For now, all the customers with the Ubee in bridge mode are SOL. It's not clear what the reason is, but Ubee in bridge mode with IPv6 is listed on the road map. If that's intentional policy or that the firmware isn't ready yet is not clear at this point.
Regards, Seth
The best way to "complain" is to simply move the service to another provider (when possible). 50 bucks a month of revenue to them is not worth the hassle of having a tech user asking for all sorts of non-standard configs. It shouldn't be that way, but that's how it usually goes. Think about it, everyone else (almost literally) is watching cat videos on youtube and streaming shows on Netflix, so as long as that works, they will be making their money and not caring about anything else. When I got TWC business class a while back, I asked the account manager to draft a month to month contract. When I realized their DOCSIS network sucked, and that my gateway was going dark several times a week, I just cancelled, didn't bother arguing with them. I bet I was the only person in my block that cared about 99.9% uptime, so why would they bother doing anything. On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Andrew Kirch <trelane@trelane.net> wrote:
I had to beat up on AT&T quite a bit, but instead of letting them "make notes", escalate to tier-2 because you can't reach work. Explain that you must have IPv6 to reach work to the tier-2. If they won't help demand to be escalated further. Your time on the phone costs them money.
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Seth Mos <seth.mos@dds.nl> wrote:
Ricky Beam schreef op 18-7-2015 om 1:14:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:25:26 -0400, Christopher Morrow <
morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
mean that your UBee has to do dhcpv6? (or the downstream thingy from the UBee has to do dhcpv6?)
The Ubee "router" is in bridge mode. Customers have ZERO access to the thing, even when it is running in routed mode. So I have no idea what it's trying to do. All I can say is no RAs are coming from it (through it/whatever) It *could* be it's blocking it -- it's multicast, so who knows what it's doing with it. Without RAs, nothing connected to it will even attempt IPv6 -- the RA being the indicator to use DHCP or not, and who's the router.
And further, when I tell my Cisco 1841 to do DHCP anyway, I get no answer.
So, the blanket statement that "it's ready" isn't true.
For a point of interest, the Ubee 320 and 321 wireless routers/modems are in use by Ziggo in the Netherlands.
Although they've rolled back the 320 modems to a older firmware, the 321 is still active on their IPv6 rollout. The problems were not strictly related to Ipv6 perse, but the newer firmware broken Voice on these all-the -things-in-one devices.
The 321 appears to be unaffected and is still active, although in just a few regions at this point of the rollout.
What's very specific about this rollout in relation to the above, is that Ziggo is currently only supporting IPv6 with the Ubee in router mode (with the wifi hotspot). The good news is that it also operates a DHCP-PD server so that you can connect your own router to the Ubee and still get IPv6 routed to you out of the /56 allocated to the customer.
For now, all the customers with the Ubee in bridge mode are SOL. It's not clear what the reason is, but Ubee in bridge mode with IPv6 is listed on the road map. If that's intentional policy or that the firmware isn't ready yet is not clear at this point.
Regards, Seth
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 06:45:43 -0400, Seth Mos <seth.mos@dds.nl> wrote:
For now, all the customers with the Ubee in bridge mode are SOL. It's not clear what the reason is, but Ubee in bridge mode with IPv6 is listed on the road map. If that's intentional policy or that the firmware isn't ready yet is not clear at this point.
Even in bridge mode, it's router is still active (and consuming an address -- which TWC eventually "fixed" by upping the number of allowed devices by one.) In TWC-BC land, the customer has no access to the CPE, so we cannot see anything beyond the login screen. ("user" -- non-priv account -- can be accessed on some of them, which is how I know the router is still active, but I cannot do anything about it.) The Arris DG1670A is passing IPv6 through properly. (I'm told it is "known broken", but it's the *one* out of three that works.) The Arris CM820A -- used for their hotspot -- doesn't appear to work correctly; my (win7) laptop got a DHCP ::/128 but then couldn't get anywhere. (IPv4 worked fine) [For the record, TWC-BC hands out a /56 no matter what you ask for.]
On 7/20/2015 5:59 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 06:45:43 -0400, Seth Mos <seth.mos@dds.nl> wrote:
For now, all the customers with the Ubee in bridge mode are SOL. It's not clear what the reason is, but Ubee in bridge mode with IPv6 is listed on the road map. If that's intentional policy or that the firmware isn't ready yet is not clear at this point.
Even in bridge mode, it's router is still active (and consuming an address -- which TWC eventually "fixed" by upping the number of allowed devices by one.) In TWC-BC land, the customer has no access to the CPE, so we cannot see anything beyond the login screen.
("user" -- non-priv account -- can be accessed on some of them, which is how I know the router is still active, but I cannot do anything about it.)
The Arris DG1670A is passing IPv6 through properly. (I'm told it is "known broken", but it's the *one* out of three that works.) The Arris CM820A -- used for their hotspot -- doesn't appear to work correctly; my (win7) laptop got a DHCP ::/128 but then couldn't get anywhere. (IPv4 worked fine)
[For the record, TWC-BC hands out a /56 no matter what you ask for.]
At least in Maine where I am, TWC does allow you to bring your own modem as long as it's DOCSIS 3 compliant and there's lots of those from motorola, netgear and others. You're not stuck with the Ubee. -- Best Regards Curtis Maurand Principal Xyonet Web Hosting mailto:cmaurand@xyonet.com http://www.xyonet.com
Furst rule of dealing with $CABLECO — If you don’t like the answer you get on this phone call, redial. The next person will probably give you a different answer. Certainly you can almost always get the answer you are looking for (even if it’s wrong) within 5 calls if you are that patient. Owen
On Jul 21, 2015, at 05:13 , Curtis Maurand <cmaurand@xyonet.com> wrote:
On 7/20/2015 5:59 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 06:45:43 -0400, Seth Mos <seth.mos@dds.nl> wrote:
For now, all the customers with the Ubee in bridge mode are SOL. It's not clear what the reason is, but Ubee in bridge mode with IPv6 is listed on the road map. If that's intentional policy or that the firmware isn't ready yet is not clear at this point.
Even in bridge mode, it's router is still active (and consuming an address -- which TWC eventually "fixed" by upping the number of allowed devices by one.) In TWC-BC land, the customer has no access to the CPE, so we cannot see anything beyond the login screen.
("user" -- non-priv account -- can be accessed on some of them, which is how I know the router is still active, but I cannot do anything about it.)
The Arris DG1670A is passing IPv6 through properly. (I'm told it is "known broken", but it's the *one* out of three that works.) The Arris CM820A -- used for their hotspot -- doesn't appear to work correctly; my (win7) laptop got a DHCP ::/128 but then couldn't get anywhere. (IPv4 worked fine)
[For the record, TWC-BC hands out a /56 no matter what you ask for.]
At least in Maine where I am, TWC does allow you to bring your own modem as long as it's DOCSIS 3 compliant and there's lots of those from motorola, netgear and others. You're not stuck with the Ubee.
-- Best Regards Curtis Maurand Principal Xyonet Web Hosting mailto:cmaurand@xyonet.com http://www.xyonet.com
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:13:48 -0400, Curtis Maurand <cmaurand@xyonet.com> wrote:
At least in Maine where I am, TWC does allow you to bring your own modem as long as it's DOCSIS 3 compliant and there's lots of those from motorola, netgear and others. You're not stuck with the Ubee.
You are ignoring the "BUSINESS CLASS" part of the equation. TWC-BC provides the modem for you; you have little (arris) or no (ubee) access to it.
On 7/21/2015 4:05 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:13:48 -0400, Curtis Maurand <cmaurand@xyonet.com> wrote:
At least in Maine where I am, TWC does allow you to bring your own modem as long as it's DOCSIS 3 compliant and there's lots of those from motorola, netgear and others. You're not stuck with the Ubee.
You are ignoring the "BUSINESS CLASS" part of the equation. TWC-BC provides the modem for you; you have little (arris) or no (ubee) access to it. Touche. Arris here in Maine.
--C -- Best Regards Curtis Maurand Principal Xyonet Web Hosting mailto:cmaurand@xyonet.com http://www.xyonet.com
The only reason I have FIOS is because they gave me a 2 year deal of 15/15 internet for $30/month. Their advertising is basically just lies and I wouldn't hold my breath over IPv6; I have to run stunnel so I can send email from home because they don't even use TLS..... Having said that, I have an HE tunnel which works flawlessly with my Asus RT-N66U router.... On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 14:25:57 -0700 "Paul B. Henson" <henson@acm.org> wrote:
I think it's been about a year and a half since I last looked (and cried) at the status of FIOS IPv6. As far as I can tell, there's been no new official news since 2013. We're deploying IPv6 at the university I work at, so IPv6 at home is moving from "wish I had it to play with" towards "need to have it to work from home". So it seems I either cancel my fios and go with business class cable (I live in Time Warner territory and it looks like they're good to go with IPv6) or set up a tunnel with HE. Or pray Google fiber comes to my neck of the woods.
Any new rumors floating around? Any Verizon employees interested in posting anonymously and explaining what on earth is going on inside the company? Any secret phone numbers to call to get in on an alpha/beta test in the So Cal area ;)?
If nothing else, it always feels better to hear other people say how ridiculous this is too <sigh> :).
Thanks...
-- John PGP Public Key: 412934AC
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 05:35:35PM -0400, John Peach wrote:
and I wouldn't hold my breath over IPv6; I have to run stunnel so I can send email from home because they don't even use TLS..... Having
Hmm, I just recently set up my mail client to use Verizon's smtp servers, and TLS seemed to work fine for me. smtp.verizon.net port 465, smtps. Took me a while to sort out smtp.verizon.net vs relay.verizon.net vs outgoing.verizon.net, but once I found the right one it's been working fine.
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 20:38:13 -0700 "Paul B. Henson" <henson@acm.org> wrote:
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 05:35:35PM -0400, John Peach wrote:
and I wouldn't hold my breath over IPv6; I have to run stunnel so I can send email from home because they don't even use TLS..... Having
Hmm, I just recently set up my mail client to use Verizon's smtp servers, and TLS seemed to work fine for me. smtp.verizon.net port 465, smtps. Took me a while to sort out smtp.verizon.net vs relay.verizon.net vs outgoing.verizon.net, but once I found the right one it's been working fine.
smtps was deprecated years ago and is not implemented in postfix, hence the need for stunnel. I should have said they don't implement STARTTLS on either 25 or 587.
From: John Peach Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 5:02 AM
smtps was deprecated years ago and is not implemented in postfix, hence the need for stunnel. I should have said they don't implement STARTTLS on either 25 or 587.
Oh, ok; I assumed you were talking about a client, not an MTA. Why are you relaying through Verizon rather than just sending directly? My home MTA on FIOS hasn't had any problems sending mail to the Internet at large, although I do have a static IP with appropriate matching/reverse DNS. Seems to be a lot less noise on this iteration of the shake fist at Verizon's lack of IPv6 thread, I guess everybody is pretty much burned out and given up 8-/. Verizon should just update their IPv6 status page with a link to hurricane electric's tunnel broker page <sigh>.
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 12:06:56 -0700 "Paul B. Henson" <henson@acm.org> wrote:
From: John Peach Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 5:02 AM
smtps was deprecated years ago and is not implemented in postfix, hence the need for stunnel. I should have said they don't implement STARTTLS on either 25 or 587.
Oh, ok; I assumed you were talking about a client, not an MTA. Why are you relaying through Verizon rather than just sending directly? My home MTA on FIOS hasn't had any problems sending mail to the Internet at large, although I do have a static IP with appropriate matching/reverse DNS.
I'm cheap :) For $30 a month they don't allow port 25 outbound.
Seems to be a lot less noise on this iteration of the shake fist at Verizon's lack of IPv6 thread, I guess everybody is pretty much burned out and given up 8-/. Verizon should just update their IPv6 status page with a link to hurricane electric's tunnel broker page <sigh>.
The fact that my router supports the HE tunnel natively makes this completely painless.
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Paul B. Henson wrote:
Seems to be a lot less noise on this iteration of the shake fist at Verizon's lack of IPv6 thread, I guess everybody is pretty much burned out and given up 8-/. Verizon should just update their IPv6 status page with a link to hurricane electric's tunnel broker page <sigh>.
For a long time, Verizon's general "What is IPv6?" page stated the standard assignment for customers was a /56... or 56 LANs. *headdesk*. jms
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Paul B. Henson wrote:
Seems to be a lot less noise on this iteration of the shake fist at Verizon's lack of IPv6 thread, I guess everybody is pretty much burned
out and given up 8-/. Verizon should just update their IPv6 status page with a link to hurricane electric's tunnel broker page <sigh>.
I think that's exactly what's occurred. There was a point where I spent several years wasting time sending notes to the sales rep, opening support tickets, trolling them on twitter and their own forum, etc., all with either no useful answer or no answer at all; ultimately I gave up and replaced the inexpensive Fios connection with a more $$ TWTC circuit. I'd flip it back to Fios if they rolled out v6 since it was a lot less expensive and had been perfectly reliable at the location that used it. David
David, Did you consider running an IPv6 tunnel through HE.net? -mel via cell
On Jul 13, 2015, at 1:46 PM, David Hubbard <dhubbard@dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2015, Paul B. Henson wrote:
Seems to be a lot less noise on this iteration of the shake fist at Verizon's lack of IPv6 thread, I guess everybody is pretty much burned
out and given up 8-/. Verizon should just update their IPv6 status page with a link to hurricane electric's tunnel broker page <sigh>.
I think that's exactly what's occurred. There was a point where I spent several years wasting time sending notes to the sales rep, opening support tickets, trolling them on twitter and their own forum, etc., all with either no useful answer or no answer at all; ultimately I gave up and replaced the inexpensive Fios connection with a more $$ TWTC circuit. I'd flip it back to Fios if they rolled out v6 since it was a lot less expensive and had been perfectly reliable at the location that used it.
David
On Jul 13, 2015, at 1:57 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
David, Did you consider running an IPv6 tunnel through HE.net?
Tunnels work, but they really are getting old. I have run 3ffe:: 6bone, HE tunnels, and (currently) aiccu. They all work very reliably, and I have immense gratitude towards the people who commit the time, the hardware, and the software, to making that go. But the bottom line is that 200+ms RTTs to my servers over v6 tunnels simply can't compete with 20ms RTTs on native v4. I know my code works over v6, but how can I ever know it works well when I'm behind a v6 dialup link? This past weekend I bit the projectile and decided to flip my service over to Teksavvy. The latter have native v6, claim to offer /48s, and have the audacity to charge me $10/month less than Telus. I'm game. More importantly, after eight years of Telus promising an IPv6 beta, I can tell them to see https://orthanc.ca/figure-1 :-P --lyndon
For a bit of fun, the results after 30 minutes of https://orthanc.ca/figure-1 being out on the nanog list: IPv4: 315 IPv6: 22 This is strictly GETs on the target page, not tainted by CSS or favicon nonsense. I don't know what this says about the proclivity of Nanog readers to blindly click on email URLs. (But the delineation between web and MUA email client user behaviours is ... interesting ...)
From: Mel Beckman [mailto:mel@beckman.org]
David, Did you consider running an IPv6 tunnel through HE.net?
We couldn't get the desired throughput via HE tunnel. We tried it, then switched to v6 through VPN using a slice of our own allocation, but ultimately didn't want that overhead either. David
Just set up the tunnel. It works beautifully. And thank you, HE.net, for being such a stellar tech leader! -mel
On Jul 12, 2015, at 2:26 PM, Paul B. Henson <henson@acm.org> wrote:
I think it's been about a year and a half since I last looked (and cried) at the status of FIOS IPv6. As far as I can tell, there's been no new official news since 2013. We're deploying IPv6 at the university I work at, so IPv6 at home is moving from "wish I had it to play with" towards "need to have it to work from home". So it seems I either cancel my fios and go with business class cable (I live in Time Warner territory and it looks like they're good to go with IPv6) or set up a tunnel with HE. Or pray Google fiber comes to my neck of the woods. ...
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 01:31:54AM +0000, Mel Beckman wrote:
Just set up the tunnel. It works beautifully.
Yeah, I probably will. Shouldn't expose my bluff, but I probably won't switch to business cable, I actually use my upstream 8-/. But I needed to get in one last rant before I went that way :).
And thank you, HE.net, for being such a stellar tech leader!
And thanks in advance from a soon-to-be tunnel requestor ;).
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015, Paul B. Henson wrote:
I think it's been about a year and a half since I last looked (and cried) at the status of FIOS IPv6. As far as I can tell, there's been no new official news since 2013. We're deploying IPv6 at the university I work at, so IPv6 at home is moving from "wish I had it to play with" towards "need to have it to work from home". So it seems I either cancel my fios and go with business class cable (I live in Time Warner territory and it looks like they're good to go with IPv6) or set up a tunnel with HE. Or pray Google fiber comes to my neck of the woods.
From what I understand, many of the ONTs and possibly set-top boxes if you have FIOS TV service don't play nicely with v6. I don't know how true
I've shaken this tree many times in the 3 years I've had FIOS (Pittsburgh, PA), and the results from Verizon have not been promising. I call their customer service center to ask about IPv6 availability every few months, and get the electronic equivalent of a blank stare. Promises to "make a notation in my account" don't mean much if no one who is in a position to act on that notation will ever read it. I've also asked our Verizon rep through $dayjob about the v6 deployment status, and Verizon is so segmented and siloed internally, that it's been nearly impossible for them to find the right people. As others have suggested, set up a tunnel with Hurricane Electric, and move on with life. I've had one for probably two years, and it's been rock-solid. While it would be great to have native v6 from Verizon, it doesn't look like it'll happen any time soon. that is, or if those are still issues. I do recall hearing that upgrading to their Quantum service might get you a different ONT, but if that's true, I don't know if the those ONTs are any more v6-friendly. I don't know if there are any v6 compatibility issues further up the chain from the ONT. jms
participants (15)
-
Andrew Kirch -
Ca By -
Christopher Morrow -
Curtis Maurand -
David Hubbard -
John Peach -
Justin M. Streiner -
Lee Howard -
Lyndon Nerenberg -
Mel Beckman -
Owen DeLong -
Paul B. Henson -
Rafael Possamai -
Ricky Beam -
Seth Mos