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.fr...@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.fr...@gmail.com
On 1/7/14, 11:28 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Christopher Morrow (morrowc.li...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Adam Rothschild
<a...@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
