Re: another tilt at the Verizon FIOS IPv6 windmill
Ricky Beam schreef op 18-7-2015 om 1:14: On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:25:26 -0400, Christopher Morrow 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
Re: Re: SEC webpages inaccessible due to Firefox blocking servers with weak DH ciphers
Federal government lands on you like a sack of bricks if you don't provide this information through their (in)secure website. No exceptions. Sometimes you can't fire the vendor because they're not a vendor, they're a freaking regulatory agency with the power to crush you like a bug, and a 5 year approval process to get anything done, never mind a month turnaround for a recently discovered exploit. On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 10:50 PM, wrote: > Weak ciphers? Old (insecure) protocol versions? Open security issues? > Vendor > will never provide a patch? Trash goes in the trash bin, no exceptions. >
Re: another tilt at the Verizon FIOS IPv6 windmill
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 wrote: > Ricky Beam schreef op 18-7-2015 om 1:14: > > On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:25:26 -0400, Christopher Morrow < >> morrowc.li...@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 >
Re: another tilt at the Verizon FIOS IPv6 windmill
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Andrew Kirch 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 wrote: > >> Ricky Beam schreef op 18-7-2015 om 1:14: >> >> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:25:26 -0400, Christopher Morrow < >>> morrowc.li...@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 >>
Re: another tilt at the Verizon FIOS IPv6 windmill
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 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 wrote: > > > Ricky Beam schreef op 18-7-2015 om 1:14: > > > > On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:25:26 -0400, Christopher Morrow < > >> morrowc.li...@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 > > >
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
> On Jul 17, 2015, at 09:17 , Joe Maimon wrote: > > > > Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> On Jul 16, 2015, at 15:29 , Joe Maimon wrote: >>> >>> All I am advocating is that if ever another draft standard comes along to >>> enable people to try and make something of it, lead follow or get out of >>> the way. >> >> Sometimes good leadership is knowing when to say “not just no, but hell no.” >> >> Owen > > This is not one of them. Your stated reason for hell no is that you want no > distractions from ipv6 rollout. That is not leadership. That is dictatorship > via tyranny of the minority, enabled by consensus, Tryanny of the minority enabled by consensus… That’s an amusing concept. If we were such a minority, how did we get consensus. Reality check, Joe… You’re pretty much the only one left still beating this drum. Owen
