another tilt at the Verizon FIOS IPv6 windmill

Sat Jul 18 19:43:32 UTC 2015

The best way to "complain" is to simply move the service to another
provider (when possible). 50 bucks a month of revenue to them is not worth
the hassle of having a tech user asking for all sorts of non-standard
configs. It shouldn't be that way, but that's how it usually goes. Think
about it, everyone else (almost literally) is watching cat videos on
youtube and streaming shows on Netflix, so as long as that works, they will
be making their money and not caring about anything else.

 When I got TWC business class a while back, I asked the account manager to
draft a month to month contract. When I realized their DOCSIS network
sucked, and that my gateway was going dark several times a week, I just
cancelled, didn't bother arguing with them. I bet I was the only person in
my block that cared about 99.9% uptime, so why would they bother doing
anything.

On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Andrew Kirch <trelane at trelane.net> wrote:

> I had to beat up on AT&T quite a bit, but instead of letting them "make
> notes", escalate to tier-2 because you can't reach work.  Explain that you
> must have IPv6 to reach work to the tier-2.  If they won't help demand to
> be escalated further.  Your time on the phone costs them money.
>
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Seth Mos <seth.mos at dds.nl> wrote:
>
> > Ricky Beam schreef op 18-7-2015 om 1:14:
> >
> >  On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:25:26 -0400, Christopher Morrow <
> >> morrowc.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> mean that your UBee has to do dhcpv6? (or the downstream thingy from
> >>> the UBee has to do dhcpv6?)
> >>>
> >>
> >> The Ubee "router" is in bridge mode. Customers have ZERO access to the
> >> thing, even when it is running in routed mode. So I have no idea what
> it's
> >> trying to do.  All I can say is no RAs are coming from it (through
> >> it/whatever) It *could* be it's blocking it -- it's multicast, so who
> knows
> >> what it's doing with it.  Without RAs, nothing connected to it will even
> >> attempt IPv6 -- the RA being the indicator to use DHCP or not, and who's
> >> the router.
> >>
> >> And further, when I tell my Cisco 1841 to do DHCP anyway, I get no
> answer.
> >>
> >> So, the blanket statement that "it's ready" isn't true.
> >>
> > For a point of interest, the Ubee 320 and 321 wireless routers/modems are
> > in use by Ziggo in the Netherlands.
> >
> > Although they've rolled back the 320 modems to a older firmware, the 321
> > is still active on their IPv6 rollout. The problems were not strictly
> > related to Ipv6 perse, but the newer firmware broken Voice on these
> all-the
> > -things-in-one devices.
> >
> > The 321 appears to be unaffected and is still active, although in just a
> > few regions at this point of the rollout.
> >
> > What's very specific about this rollout in relation to the above, is that
> > Ziggo is currently only supporting IPv6 with the Ubee in router mode
> (with
> > the wifi hotspot). The good news is that it also operates a DHCP-PD
> server
> > so that you can connect your own router to the Ubee and still get IPv6
> > routed to you out of the /56 allocated to the customer.
> >
> > For now, all the customers with the Ubee in bridge mode are SOL. It's not
> > clear what the reason is, but Ubee in bridge mode with IPv6 is listed on
> > the road map. If that's intentional policy or that the firmware isn't
> ready
> > yet is not clear at this point.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Seth
> >
>