You might want to give this a read:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-02.txt
Original Message
From: Randy Carpenter
Sent: Tue, Jan 17, 2012 5:4 PM
To: Nanog
CC:
Subject: How are you doing DHCPv6 ?
I am wondering how people out there are u
The draft does help you, it is a BCP and does not specify a standard. It
outlines some BCPs that are usable today. I believe I tested and verified
that what I outlined works with the ISC DHCPv6 server. It also works with
other DHCPv6 servers as well.
John
===
On 1/17/12 6:37 PM, "Daniel Roesen" wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 06:19:28PM -0500, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>> > You might want to give this a read:
>> >
>> >
>>http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-02.txt
>>
>> That doesn't really help us if we want to deploy bef
help find out this before World Ipv6 day so that I
>could participate that would be ideal... I wonder if anyone else has
>tried
>getting this info on the list with better results?
>
>- Jimmy
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Livingood, Jason [mailto:jason_living...@cable.comcast.co
Commercial DOCSIS is later this year.
Commercial fiber can be supported now.
John
=
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Cable
m) +1-609-377-6594
e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com
o) +1-484-962-0060
w) http://www.comcast6.net
We are investigating.
Original Message
From: Casey Deccio
Sent: Thu, 07/06/2012 18:47
To: nanog@nanog.org
CC:
Subject: sporadic IPv6 connectivity to forums.comcast.com
I'm seeing sporadic IPv6 connectivity issues to forums.comcast.com:
casey@rome$ curl -I6 forums.comcast
Regarding the thread:
http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2016-May/085878.html
David,
I looked around CA and it looks like some customers are provisioned with two
delegated IPv6 prefixes. We had an issue a week or so back that we believe was
corrected. If you wish contact me off list.
Folks,
I meant to send this sooner, hopefully better late than never. We found a bug
in the SMC D3G CCR that was specific to IPv6. We tried for many months
(practically years to get it fixed properly) with no success. As such we have
to roll back IPv6 support for the same. See the link belo
If there is anyone from Hulu on the NANOG list can you please contact me
unicast?
Thanks,
John
=
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Cable
m) 609-377-6594
o) 484-962-0060
w) www.comcast6.net
e) john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com
===
FYI – please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions:
http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-reaches-key-milestone-in-launch-of-ipv6-broadband-network
Thank you,
John
=
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Cable
w) www.comcast6.net
24, 2014 at 16:16
To: John Brzozowski , NANOG
Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Milestone
>Congrats to you and your team John!
>
>I presume Comcast Business is still a work in progress?
>
>- Jim
>
>On 7/24/2014 08:08, Brzozowski, John wrote:
>> FYI – please feel free to contact
See below.
John
-Original Message-
From: "nanog-requ...@nanog.org"
Reply-To: NANOG
Date: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:18 AM
To: NANOG
Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 107
>Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 09:43:10 -0800
>From: joel jaeggli
>To: "Dobbins, Roland" , NANOG list
>
>S
-Original Message-
From: "nanog-requ...@nanog.org"
Reply-To: NANOG
Date: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 5:13 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 110
>Message: 7
>Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:00:22 +1100
>From: Mark Andrews
>To: Michael Thomas
>Cc: NANOG list
>Subject: Re: "P
-Original Message-
From: "nanog-requ...@nanog.org"
Reply-To: NANOG
Date: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 5:13 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 110
>Message: 9
>Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:13:43 -0800 (PST)
>From: David Barak
>To: Cutler James R , nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: R
There is a lot more to come this year, so stay tuned. ;)
John
-Original Message-
From: "nanog-requ...@nanog.org"
Reply-To: NANOG
Date: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 7:01 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 111
>Message: 1
>Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 11:52:39 +1100
>From: Mark
This is news, it would be great if more details were available. Anyone?
=
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Cable
m) +1-609-377-6594
e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com
o) +1-484-962-0060
w) http://www.comcast6.net
==
Original Message-
From: "nanog-requ...@nanog.org"
Reply-To: NANOG
Date: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:20 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 113
>On Jan 30, 2013, at 7:52 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>The update you sent is lovely, except I can tell you that the one (also
>a
http://mydeviceinfo.comcast.net is up to date and will have more devices
this year. If the device is a standalone modem and has IPv6 checked you
need to make sure your customer owned CPE supports IPv6 *AND* is enabled.
Otherwise if it is an integrated device provided by Comcast or via
retails, onc
I can confirm CGN has not been deployed for Comcast customers.
=
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Cable
m) 609-377-6594
e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com
o) 484-962-0060
w) http://www.comcast6.net
=
___
FYI for folks that are interested:
http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-launches-ipv6-for-business-customers
John
=
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Cable
e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com
w)
http://www.comcast6.net ===
The below is largely accurate. Comcast will support the creation of IPv6
PTR for static commercial IPv6 customers when we launch the same. We are
currently in trial for dynamic commercial and are expanding our dynamic
trials. Static IPv6 trials will be starting soon, hopefully November.
John
D
Andrew,
Question is this native or 6rd? According to my ARIN WHOIS query it looks
like 6rd.
Definitely great news that you were able to acquire IPv6.
John
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 01:22:02 -0500
From: Andrew D Kirch
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO
Message-ID: <5290
Folks,
The thread below was sent to me a few times, apologies for not catching it
sooner.
Janet,
I sent you mail unicast with a request for some information. I am happy to
help you out.
For the larger NANOG audience, Comcast has recently launched IPv6 support for
our BCI products, these are
Correct link for Cisco is updated below.
John
From: , John Brzozowski
mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com>>
Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 12:14
To: NANOG mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
Subject: Comcast Support (from NANOG Digest, Vol 84, Issue 23)
Folks,
The thread below was sent to me a few
> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 17:14:11 +
>> From: "Brzozowski, John"
>> To: "nanog@nanog.org"
>> Subject: Comcast Support (from NANOG Digest, Vol 84, Issue 23)
>> Message-ID:
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>(...)
&g
Sorry Ron, just replied with the same information.
=
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Cable
p) 484-962-0060
w) www.comcast6.net
e) john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com
=
-Original Message-
From: Ron Broersma
Dat
Paul,
Circling back here, you all set here? Should see the following over IPv6 and
IPv4:
xfinity.comcast.net
xfinitytv.comcast.net
John
=
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Cable
m) +1-609-377-6594
e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com
o) +1-484-962-006
Folks,
We will report back shortly with some updates.
Thanks for the mail.
John
=
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Cable
m) +1-609-377-6594
e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com
o) +1-484-962-0060
w) http://www.comcast6.net
=
+1 Jared.
Big thanks to all the participants and the ISOC.
John
=
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Cable
e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com
o) 609-377-6594
m) 484-962-0060
w) http://www.comcast6.net
=
On 6/8
You might want to consider 655 or 825 from Dlink and the Apple Airport
Extreme and Time Capsule. We have had a pretty
good experience with these models thus far.
John
=
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Cable
e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com
o) 609-3
Update from http://www.comcast6.net
IPv6 Pilot Market Deployment Begins
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Comcast has started our first pilot market deployment of IPv6 in limited areas
of California and Colorado. This first phase supports directly connected CPE,
where a single computer is directly con
ot; wrote:
>
>
>
>On 11/09/2011 11:40 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
> On 2011-11-09 17:32 , Brzozowski, John wrote:
>
>
>Update from http://www.comcast6.net
>IPv6 Pilot Market Deployment Begins
>Wednesday, November 9, 2011
>
>Comcast has
, Nov 9, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>> On 2011-11-09 17:32 , Brzozowski, John wrote:
>>> Update from http://www.comcast6.net
>>> IPv6 Pilot Market Deployment Begins
>>> Wednesday, November 9, 2011
>>>
>>> Comcast has started our first pi
Dmitry,
You could consider the use of prefixes longer than the /64 on CMTS
interfaces, however, it is not clear to me why this would be done.
Further, most DHCPv6 implementations do not require that the generated
IPv6 address be eui-64 based. A randomized algorithm could also be used.
Another co
On 11/28/11 10:29 AM, "Ray Soucy" wrote:
>It's a good practice to reserve a 64-bit prefix for each network.
>That's a good general rule. For point to point or link networks you
>can use something as small as a 126-bit prefix (we do).
[jjmb] for point to point I agree with this point. If a /64
I mentioned this in an earlier reply. CM vs CPE vs CPE router are all
different use cases. From a CPE or CPE router point of view SLAAC will
likely not be used to provisioned devices, stateful DHCPv6 is required.
As such Vista/7 machines that are directly connected to cable modems will
receive an
Having control over hosts ie an enterprise
environment, creates the opportunity to mandate DHCPv6, it does not always
it should be required. Again this depends on the deployment scenario.
>
>On Nov 28, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Brzozowski, John wrote:
>
>> I mentioned this in an earlier reply. CM v
table results that may be desired, e.g. for tracking
>some device migration between different networks.
>
>Dmitry Cherkasov
>
>
>
>2011/11/29 Brzozowski, John :
>> Dmitry,
>>
>>
>> You could consider the use of prefixes longer than the /64 on CMTS
>&
Technically this is not true. SLAAC is not prohibited, it does come with
side affects that complicate the deployment of IPv6. It is technically
feasible to use SLAAC, it is just not practical in most cases.
Stateful DHCPv6 is the preferred mechanism for address and configuration
assignment. Pre
f SLAAC for CMs currently (checked Casa and Cisco
>uBR10K).
[jjmb] I am sure you make it work on at least one of the above. :)
>
>
>Dmitry Cherkasov
>
>
>
>2011/11/30 Brzozowski, John :
>> Technically this is not true. SLAAC is not prohibited, it does come
>>
Did you check out IPv6 Essentials, 2nd edition by Siliva Hagen?
John
609-377-6594
- Original Message -
From: Brad Fleming
To: Curtis Maurand
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Mon Mar 01 09:27:48 2010
Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials Update
I found "Migrating
In order to deploy /56 to end users would require an IPv6 /24 be dedicated
to 6rd, /48s would require a dedicated IPv6 /16. This assumes an operator
wants/needs to provide IPv6 via 6rd to end users where their IPv4 address
is fully unique. There is quite a bit of IPv6 address space that does not
see the need for subnetting a /64 arising sooner than
>later.
>
>It might not be perfect, It might be ugly, but it will happen. And, if
>you ask me, I would rather subnet a /64 than end up with a ipv6
>version of NAT, a much worse alternative.
>
>cheers,
>
>Carlos
>
>
bscriber.
John
=
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Cable
e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com
o) 609-377-6594
m) 484-962-0060
w) http://www.comcast6.net
=
On 1/27/11 9:03 AM, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
>
>
Comcast Activates First Users With IPv6 Native Dual Stack Over DOCSIS
http://blog.comcast.com/2011/01/comcast-activates-first-users-with-ipv6-nat
ive-dual-stack-over-docsis.html
John
=
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Cable
e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comc
+1
=
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Cable
e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com
o) 609-377-6594
m) 484-962-0060
w) http://www.comcast6.net
=
On 2/14/11 5:09 PM, "Cameron Byrne" wrote:
>On Feb 14, 2011 1:52 P
Folks,
Since deploying our 6to4 relays, Comcast has observed a substantial
reduction in the latency associated with the use of 6to4. As such we are
contemplating further opening our relays for use by others. The
availability of our 6to4 relays should improve the experience of others
using 6to4 as
Doug,
I am aware of the drafts you cited earlier, as Mikael mentions below the
existence of the same will not result in 6to4 being turned off
automatically or immediately. This process will likely take years.
Please note the goal here is not to make 6to4 great, like many others we
hope to see 6
48 matches
Mail list logo
