Congrats to AS701

Mon Jun 13 16:00:13 UTC 2022

I might call Verizon and ask about v6 availability as I periodically do.
I'll check if I see anything different on my gear later today.  I have a
GPON business service with static IPv4 at one location and an older BPON
business service with static IPv4 in another location.

Thank you
jms

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 11:18 AM Nimrod Levy <nimrodl at gmail.com> wrote:

> Also, it doesn't seem to be enabled on ports that have static ipv4
>
> but progress is progress. we'll take it.
>
> Nimrod
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 11:17 AM Matthew Huff <mhuff at ox.com> wrote:
>
>> Still no IPv6 in Westchester County, NY ☹
>>
>>
>>
>> Great sign though, maybe NY will get it eventually
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+mhuff=ox.com at nanog.org> * On Behalf Of *Joe
>> Loiacono
>> *Sent:* Monday, June 13, 2022 10:55 AM
>> *To:* nanog at nanog.org
>> *Subject:* Re: Congrats to AS701
>>
>>
>>
>> FiOS from Maryland (anonymized):
>>
>> enp3s0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST>  mtu 1500
>>         inet 192.168.1.164  netmask 255.255.255.0  broadcast 192.168.1.255
>>         inet6 fe80::b104:8f4d:e5b2:e13b  prefixlen 64  scopeid 0x20<link>
>>         inet6 2600:4040:b27f:cb00:a9b1:5f59:xxxx:xxxx  prefixlen 64
>> scopeid 0x0<global>
>>         inet6 2600:4040:b27f:cb00:24a8:7b31:xxxx:xxxx  prefixlen 64
>> scopeid 0x0<global>
>>         inet6 2600:4040:b27f:cb00:e1b6:8b83:xxxx:xxxx  prefixlen 64
>> scopeid 0x0<global>
>>         ether d0:67:e5:23:ec:fe  txqueuelen 1000  (Ethernet)
>>         RX packets 2518066  bytes 1448982813 (1.4 GB)
>>         RX errors 0  dropped 0  overruns 0  frame 0
>>         TX packets 2157395  bytes 260073952 (260.0 MB)
>>         TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0
>>
>> a at b:~$ ping 2607:f8b0:4004:c09::6a
>> PING 2607:f8b0:4004:c09::6a(2607:f8b0:4004:c09::6a) 56 data bytes
>> 64 bytes from 2607:f8b0:4004:c09::6a: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=24.0 ms
>> 64 bytes from 2607:f8b0:4004:c09::6a: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=17.6 ms
>> 64 bytes from 2607:f8b0:4004:c09::6a: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=20.4 ms
>> 64 bytes from 2607:f8b0:4004:c09::6a: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=23.4 ms
>> ^C
>> --- 2607:f8b0:4004:c09::6a ping statistics ---
>> 4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3004ms
>> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 17.618/21.351/23.983/2.555 ms
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/12/2022 1:55 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 11:03 PM Darrel Lewis (darlewis) <
>> darlewis at cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>> I, for one, am having a hard time finding the proper words to express the
>> joy that I am feeling at this momentous moment!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It's quite amazing, I think... that it's taken so long to get to
>> deployment you can actually see on the fios plant :)
>>
>> I'd note I can't see the below on my homestead, but I can at a relative's
>> (where the ifconfig data is from).
>>
>> I also can't tell if the upstream will PD a block to the downstream...
>> and the VZ CPE is 'not something I want to fiddle with',
>>
>> because everytime I have tried at my house I've just taken it out behind
>> the woodshed with a maul... and replaced it with
>>
>> something I CAN configure successfully. (plus.. don't want that TR 069 in
>> my home...)
>>
>>
>>
>> -chris
>>
>>
>>
>> -Darrel
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 11, 2022, at 7:05 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> Looks like FIOS customers may be getting ipv6 deployed toward them,
>> finally:
>>
>> ifconfig snippet from local machine:
>>         inet6 2600:4040:2001:2200:73d2:6bcc:1e6b:43a1  prefixlen 64
>>  scopeid 0x0<global>
>>         inet6 2600:4040:2001:2200:e87:bf36:b6cb:6ce1  prefixlen 64
>>  scopeid 0x0<global>
>>
>>
>>
>> ping attempt:
>>
>>   64 bytes from bh-in-f106.1e100.net (2607:f8b0:4004:c09::6a):
>> icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=8.71 ms
>>
>>
>>
>> 8ms from mclean, va to ashburn, va isn't wondrous, but at least it's ipv6
>> (and marginally faster than ipv4)
>>
>>
>>
>> Congrats to the 701 folk for deploying more widely!
>>
>>   (note: I don't know exactly when this started, nor how wide it really
>> is, but progress here is welcomed by myself at least :) )
>>
>> -chris
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220613/5fc38a1e/attachment.html>