Verizon FIOS IPv6?
iggdawg at gmail.com
Wed Jan 8 13:30:56 UTC 2014
I've been barking at them for a couple years now, I never get much.
They're good about staffing their front line support with flowchart
monkeys. My internet facing device is constantly listening for any sort of
indication that native IPv6 is starting up, but never hears anything. 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.
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Andrew Fried <andrew.fried at gmail.com> 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 gmail.com
> On 1/7/14, 11:28 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Christopher Morrow (morrowc.lists at gmail.com) wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Adam Rothschild
> >> <asr at latency.net> 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