Verizon FIOS IPv6?

Thu Jan 9 10:32:36 UTC 2014

On Thursday, January 09, 2014 12:03:13 AM Justin M. Streiner 
wrote:

> 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.

Well, typically, linear Tv services are ran in their own 
VLAN and on RFC 1918 space. So in essence, they can start 
deploying IPv6 for the Internet VLAN (I'm not claiming to 
know their network design, just speaking generally) while 
they figure out how to get their STB's supporting IPv6.

The majority of STB's support neither IGMPv3 nor IPv6, for 
the same reason. The manufacturers don't see the point, and 
the operators who buy from them don't see the need to put 
them on the spot (which is all bad).

I could see an issue where the STB also has some OTT content 
capability (like VoD or cloud-based DVR, e.t.c.), and if the 
servers pumping that content out are not part of the walled-
garden, NAT44 would be needed to bring that content down to 
an STB that has an RFC 1918 address driving it. In such a 
case, supporting IPv6 on the STB sooner rather than later 
alleviates pressures associated with NAT44.

So lack of IPv6 support in the STB is not a deal-breaking 
reason, IMHO, since users are generally using IPv6 on 
laptops, desktops, smart phones, tablets, gaming consoles, 
OTT services, Tv's, media streamers, e.t.c., which typically 
fall under the Internet VLAN, i.e., aren't in some walled-
garden.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140109/875ecd8c/attachment.sig>