V6 still not supported

Grant Taylor gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net
Wed Mar 9 21:32:25 UTC 2022

On 3/9/22 1:01 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
> It's not just equipment vendors, it's ISPs.

I completely agree.

I get why line of business applications; e.g. billing, provisioning, 
repair, haven't been updated to support IPv6.

But I believe that any network equipment vendor that is (or has been for 
the last 1-2 decades) selling /new/ equipment really has no excuse for 
not IPv6 not having feature parity with IPv4.

> Here in Oregon, Frontier was recently acquired by Ziply. They're doing 
> massive infrastructure work and recently started offering symmetrical 
> gigabit FTTH. This is a brand new greenfield PON deployment. No 
> IPv6. It took being transferred three times to reach a person who 
> even knew what it was.

I've had similar lack of success with my municipal GPON provider.  At 
least the people answering support tickets know what IPv6 is and know 
that it's on their future list without even being in planing / testing 

> Likewise the Wave Broadband cable operator. No IPv6, no plans for it.


Grant. . . .
unix || die

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4017 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220309/7578f62f/attachment.bin>

More information about the NANOG mailing list