On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 12:00 PM Justin Streiner <strein...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I might call Verizon and ask about v6 availability as I periodically do. > I'll check if I see anything different on my gear later today. I have a > GPON business service with static IPv4 at one location and an older BPON > business service with static IPv4 in another location. > > As a short and not totally complete update to this problem... A 'long time listener, first time caller' sort of person noted to me off-list that: "Hey, once upon a time I dealt with hardware/vendor things... and we wouldn't send 'RA type' packets (solicits/etc) down the customer leg UNLESS they had already sent a RouterSolicitation... on the BNG platform." So... I copy/pasta'd some comcast facing config and.. low and behold my link sends me a /56 if I ask for one via PD! for <reasons that include chris is holding it wrong> I can't personally use the v6 (yet) here, but this is super encouraging! Perhaps this is 'CPE configuration away' from working in a bunch more places? -chris > Thank you > jms > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 11:18 AM Nimrod Levy <nimr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Also, it doesn't seem to be enabled on ports that have static ipv4 >> >> but progress is progress. we'll take it. >> >> Nimrod >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 11:17 AM Matthew Huff <mh...@ox.com> wrote: >> >>> Still no IPv6 in Westchester County, NY ☹ >>> >>> >>> >>> Great sign though, maybe NY will get it eventually >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+mhuff=ox....@nanog.org> * On Behalf Of *Joe >>> Loiacono >>> *Sent:* Monday, June 13, 2022 10:55 AM >>> *To:* nanog@nanog.org >>> *Subject:* Re: Congrats to AS701 >>> >>> >>> >>> FiOS from Maryland (anonymized): >>> >>> enp3s0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 >>> inet 192.168.1.164 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast >>> 192.168.1.255 >>> inet6 fe80::b104:8f4d:e5b2:e13b prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link> >>> inet6 2600:4040:b27f:cb00:a9b1:5f59:xxxx:xxxx prefixlen 64 >>> scopeid 0x0<global> >>> inet6 2600:4040:b27f:cb00:24a8:7b31:xxxx:xxxx prefixlen 64 >>> scopeid 0x0<global> >>> inet6 2600:4040:b27f:cb00:e1b6:8b83:xxxx:xxxx prefixlen 64 >>> scopeid 0x0<global> >>> ether d0:67:e5:23:ec:fe txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet) >>> RX packets 2518066 bytes 1448982813 (1.4 GB) >>> RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0 >>> TX packets 2157395 bytes 260073952 (260.0 MB) >>> TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0 >>> >>> a@b:~$ ping 2607:f8b0:4004:c09::6a >>> PING 2607:f8b0:4004:c09::6a(2607:f8b0:4004:c09::6a) 56 data bytes >>> 64 bytes from 2607:f8b0:4004:c09::6a: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=24.0 ms >>> 64 bytes from 2607:f8b0:4004:c09::6a: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=17.6 ms >>> 64 bytes from 2607:f8b0:4004:c09::6a: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=20.4 ms >>> 64 bytes from 2607:f8b0:4004:c09::6a: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=23.4 ms >>> ^C >>> --- 2607:f8b0:4004:c09::6a ping statistics --- >>> 4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3004ms >>> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 17.618/21.351/23.983/2.555 ms >>> >>> >>> >>> On 6/12/2022 1:55 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 11:03 PM Darrel Lewis (darlewis) < >>> darle...@cisco.com> wrote: >>> >>> I, for one, am having a hard time finding the proper words to express >>> the joy that I am feeling at this momentous moment! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> It's quite amazing, I think... that it's taken so long to get to >>> deployment you can actually see on the fios plant :) >>> >>> I'd note I can't see the below on my homestead, but I can at a >>> relative's (where the ifconfig data is from). >>> >>> I also can't tell if the upstream will PD a block to the downstream... >>> and the VZ CPE is 'not something I want to fiddle with', >>> >>> because everytime I have tried at my house I've just taken it out behind >>> the woodshed with a maul... and replaced it with >>> >>> something I CAN configure successfully. (plus.. don't want that TR 069 >>> in my home...) >>> >>> >>> >>> -chris >>> >>> >>> >>> -Darrel >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 11, 2022, at 7:05 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.li...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Looks like FIOS customers may be getting ipv6 deployed toward them, >>> finally: >>> >>> ifconfig snippet from local machine: >>> inet6 2600:4040:2001:2200:73d2:6bcc:1e6b:43a1 prefixlen 64 >>> scopeid 0x0<global> >>> inet6 2600:4040:2001:2200:e87:bf36:b6cb:6ce1 prefixlen 64 >>> scopeid 0x0<global> >>> >>> >>> >>> ping attempt: >>> >>> 64 bytes from bh-in-f106.1e100.net (2607:f8b0:4004:c09::6a): >>> icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=8.71 ms >>> >>> >>> >>> 8ms from mclean, va to ashburn, va isn't wondrous, but at least it's >>> ipv6 (and marginally faster than ipv4) >>> >>> >>> >>> Congrats to the 701 folk for deploying more widely! >>> >>> (note: I don't know exactly when this started, nor how wide it really >>> is, but progress here is welcomed by myself at least :) ) >>> >>> -chris >>> >>>