Verizon FIOS IPv6?

Thu Jan 9 13:41:30 UTC 2014

* Geert Bosch (bosch at adacore.com) wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2014, at 17:03, Justin M. Streiner <streiner at cluebyfour.org> wrote:
> > I have a tunnel through HE and it is solid.
[...]
> --- XXXX.gnat.com ping6 statistics ---
> 20 packets transmitted, 20 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
> round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 15.204/16.911/18.721/0.941 ms
> 
> This really is good latency, especially considering the tunnel.
> Note that my MacBook Pro is using a WiFi connection, adding a
> millisecond or two as well. 
> 
> --- XXXX ping statistics ---
> 20 packets transmitted, 20 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
> round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 26.280/28.259/31.289/1.254 ms

I'm really curious how *that* is working out.  My IPv6 tunnel is only a
ms or two slower than IPv4 (and it's all sub-15ms), but there is
something very odd if the tunnel is *faster*.  Have you tried working
out where the difference is coming from (eg: mtr or similar)?

> This is fine, but not great. The Apple Base station does NAT-ing,
> but did the same for my previous DSL link to Bway, which had <16ms
> ping times, so I can rule out NAT-related delays. At this point
> in time I'm not holding my breath for VZ to do anything to accommodate
> IPv6 or provide good routing, and know that if, for my company or 
> otherwise, I'll have an option to chose HE, I will.

Spent another hour with the FIOS folks last night and, while the tech
folks knew what IPv6 was, they weren't able to provide any info about
timelines or, really, much of anything.

> PS. Today I changed my FIOS autopay method with VZ (as somehow they
> ignored the info I gave at signup) and got notified it would take
> up to 60 days (!!!) for the changes to take effect. Clearly, VZ is
> (and always will be) a phone company.

Sadly, Verizon is *both* a phone company and an Internet company- it's
just that FIOS is part of the phone company half.  Verizon Enterprise
has supported IPv6 for a number of years and we were able to turn it
up at my last job w/o too much trouble, once I convinced the necessary
folks that we should ask for it.

	Thanks,

		Stephen
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140109/405be9f7/attachment.sig>