Verizon FIOS IPv6?

Justin M. Streiner streiner at
Wed Jan 8 22:03:13 UTC 2014

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.


> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Andrew Fried <andrew.fried at> 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.fried at
>> On 1/7/14, 11:28 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>> * Christopher Morrow (morrowc.lists at wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Adam Rothschild
>>>> <asr at> 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

More information about the NANOG mailing list