Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Refuses To Provide Complete IPv6
Glendale2x writes "I'm a progressive sort of guy and I want to go full dual-stack, IPv6 for the future, etc. However I recently tried to turn up a new Verizon circuit with IPv6 (after a 6-month fiber install process), and to my chagrin the order they accepted back in May they're now saying is against their policy to provide. They're missing around 29% of the IPv6 internet and refuse to carry it. Tell me again how we're supposed to encourage IPv6 adoption in the face of a huge black hole like this?"
They'd damn well better give you a full refund if that v6 was an essential part of the contract.
If verizon's pulling this shit AND trying to keep your money they need their asses spanked in court, big time.
From the EVIL 29% of the internet.
IPv4 Exhaustion is expected approximately 734 days from today's date. That is just about 2 years.
It takes a lot longer than 2 years to develop a networking standard, and gain acceptance from the community, and no alternative has even been proposed.
There are two solutions on the table: IPv6 and IPv4 with carrier grade NAT.
It's going to be one of those things, in two years.
Does that imply there was a contract between you and Verizon? If so you should pursue them for breach.
I don't think the Telcos are finished punishing us for de-regulation yet. They want us to cry for Ma Bell, and then when the rates go through the roof, we might be forgiven.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
"Carrier-grade NAT" is not a solution, it's an oxymoron, and one that has already been rejected by the real world.
Fail. Looks like Slashdot doesn't provide complete IPv6 either.
What's wrong with IPv6 exactly?
I've been running dual stack on test servers just because and it seems to work fine. I've tested Windows Server 2008 and Vista clients with IPv6 and it works fine. I even get IPv6 connections to some internet servers like Mozilla.
Admittedly, I'm not an expert, but I'm looking forward to the end of NAT on every router.
Tell me again how we're supposed to encourage IPv6 adoption in the face of a huge black hole like this?
Well call me Captain Obvious, but I'd say don't subscribe to Verizon. If enough people want it, eventually either Verizon will offer it or they'll go out of business. Either way it's a win for consumers.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Except China. The latest figure I've heard is six levels of NAT in some places.
Server's overloaded. I didn't expect me complaining about Verizon would hit the front page. Trying to convert it to a static page.
this is my sig
if the reason that the big boys don't want to go to IPv6 is that they stand to lose an additional money maker. They can charge for publicly available IP addresses with IPv4. In IPv6, every address would be public. This might explain carrier reluctance to make the change. It gives them one less way to nickle and dime the consumer.
Slashdot is a proper American site and refuses to surrender to new-fangled hippie bullshit like Unicode and IPv6. If ASCII and IPv4 was good enough for George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, it is good enough for us!
The abundant usage of Javascript and AJAX may suggest differently, but after any amount of actually using the site, you'll see it's really a undercover op to make people long for the simple functionality of the pre-Web-2.0 days.
[citation needed]
In 2003, RIPE NCC noted that estimates fell around 2012. I will grant you that 2003 is not 12 years ago, only 6, but that was a result on the first page of google for "IPv4 run-out estimates over time."
I'm unfamiliar with oil reserves and cold fusion research, but I'd like to see your justifications for those claims, too :-)
-Aggressive purchase/selloff of unused IP space (there are companies with class As that come no where near 16.7 million systems).
-ISPs dropping granting an IP to residential customers and phones on the base plans, using NAT upstream
In other words, the world is so IPv6 averse that the IP exhaustion will not really happen in the medium-term future. While it is sad, the fact that 95% of the internet does not care or know about having a globally unique IP address will keep NAT a viable solution for a while. I.e. just as some people pay extra for a single static IP address, in the next few years, expect to have to pay a premium for a single real IP for others to reach you at.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Thanks to China's Carrier-grade NAT you aren't seeing levels seven through 1,345,751,000. In China OLPC means One Level of network address translation Per Citizen.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I know I'm only seeing a small piece of the diagnostics here, but it's my understanding that they are correct that Verizon's end-user network should act as a stub as far as end-user traffic is concerned. If the problem is that they won't route traffic from your address (inside Verizon's /32) to another direct-allocation network that is in fact a legitimate BGP peer for IPv6 services, I'd complain to ARIN directly that their traffic is being dropped.
IPv4 is a measurable finite resource. There are 2^32 of them. You can plot it on a graph fairly accurately.
Predicting the end of IPv4 addresses is like predicting the end of any other measurable, finite resource:
As we get near the end, if there is demand there will be rationing or an increase in price to drive demand down. Either way, the supply will last longer than a naive prediction would indicate.
IPv4 NAT has already reduced the rate of exhaustion beyond what it would be without it, albeit at the price of reduced inter-connectivity.
If IPv6 isn't rolled out nearly globally soon, I think you'll see a lot more carriers handing out NAT'd addresses for new customers unless those customers are willing to pay extra for a world-visible address. Within a year after that they'll jack up the prices on existing customers who don't "downgrade" to the cheaper NAT'd plan. This will buy more time, but, again, at the cost of decreased connectivity.
Of course, I could be wrong, there could be something new and easier to implement coming down the pike, in which case all bets are off.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
therefore, ipv6 is bad for Verizon?
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
The boy who cried wolf might have turned out differently if the boy were able to predict the approximate future date at which the wolf would come, and periodically reminded people that the date was getting closer.
It's hard to tell from the summary, but did you sign a contract with them back in May that included IPv6 support? If yes, and they spent six months building out the line only to tell you in the end, "oh, sorry, we don't want to do IPv6 anymore" then you can get them in court for material change of contract. If there was no contract (hard to believe if there was a 6-month build-out), or if it never specified IPv6 anywhere, then you're hosed and pretty much get what you deserve for taking Verizon's word at face value. :)
First and perhaps foremost, a lot of the industry has formulated a non-trivial amount of their business plan around the artificial scarcity of IPv4. It is recommended that even residences get /48 prefixes, though some have asked that to be reduced to /56, giving every person up to 255 subnets to route, each subnet being able to host 18 quintillion hosts in a globally unique fashion. Giving a singe IP address just won't cut it since no one has bothered to do NATing on IPv6.
Secondly, no sanctioned way exists for an IPv6 only 'client' to communicate with an IPv4 'server'. I know that the engineers of IPv6 have a pure vision of a peer to peer internet where NAT is evil, but they needed to embrace it to get a very bad problem addressed. If it were baked in, then ISPs would suddenly have an incentive to migrate. As it stands, IPv6 represents only a financial burden, since it requires investment *and* they can't cut off IPv4 due to lack of interoperability. With this, suddenly, the still valuable IPv4 space wouldn't need to be given out to end customers, and IPv6 could carry them through.
One alternative would be for ISPs to start giving out private IPv4 addresses and doing the NATing for IPv4 that way, then assigning IPv6 networks for usage more in the spirit of symmetric peers. However, ISPs aren't particularly incentivized to go beyond the first step of taking away globaly IPv4 addresses. This comes to a third reason, we can still game the system with ISP level NAT a lot more since a vast majority of IP addresses in use are used by people who wouldn't even know they were behind an external NAT gateway if it happened to them one day. Most every modern internet usage is designed to tolerate NATs. Torrent and friends are more impacted than others, but most people still use http for 99% of their internet experience, and do not serve at all.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I'm getting rather sick of reading posts along the lines of "it doesn't work," "it'll never work," and "you need to have one work for the other." In 2006-2007, I tried deploying an IPv4-based TINC setup on my office computers. However, to maintain this, you needed a computer at each of the bigger sites, and smaller systems tied to a common system: I had over 100 nodes chained together like this. By summer 2007, it was unsustainable: I had already been researching IPv6, and decided to start implementing it as a solution for accessing things like Intranet, VNC, and remote file systems. By the end of 2007, I had more or less eliminated the IPv4 chains with a setup of our sites using NAT'd IPv4 in the 192.168-whatever range, and individual IPv6 subnets for each site, tied together by an ethernet-based TINC install on OpenWRT routers. It has worked above and beyond my expectations: we can use regular Internet; we can use IPv6 global and internal resources. If it doesn't support v6 out of the box, chances are it works with "portproxy" fine. With a transition to newer Linux systems and Vista/2008 Windows systems, it becomes more streamlined. You can't avoid v6: its all around you. I believe in it and I've made it work.
Life is irony, and nothing ever goes as planned.
It's a bit like suggesting you can sell parts of your land (real-estate) under the table, without notifying the county records office of the sale..
The problem is... there's a registered owner (or deed holder). And having someone tell you that you can use some IP addresses is useless unless you can get traffic to them.
The action required to get traffic to go to an IP address is very public, you have to announce the IP address space using an AS number.
The only way for you to do it without setting off alarm bells is to pretend that you ARE the person you "bought" the IPs from under the table, using their AS number.
Your announcement will probably be filtered, since your IP block is a portion of theirs (it's smaller than the assignment)
So the traffic goes to them... unless they happen to be an ISP connected to you, you are now in a sticky situation.
So the difficulty in simply 'acquiring IPs' under the table, is the need to get connectivity to them. Controlling that connectivity is harder, and if the company that sold you the IPs goes bankrupt, you're screwed.
You're better off just getting your ISP to allocate you the IPs. Either that... or buying/merging with other companies for the sole purpose of acquiring their IP addresses, and throwing away all else.
(Depending on how scarce IPs get)
IPv6 was designed to solve not just one problem, but two. Not just address exhaustion, but also routing table explosion.
But it created a problem: no multihoming. I'm not just a Verizon customer: I'm a Sprint customer, I'm a SAVVIS customer. How would it be efficient to only be able to route via Verizon (especially if it were down)?
this is my sig
For those interested:
Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down State/PfxRcd
2600:80A:60F::1 4 701 18685 7401 44868 0 0 1d09h 1516
2620:0:950::242:130
4 11170 28462 14090 44869 0 0 1d00h 2140
Verizon carries 1516 routes, the combination of Sprint and HE are 2140 routes.
this is my sig
The least bad solution with the current standards is to give to each IPv6 multiple addresses, e.g. one with the Verizon prefix, one with the Sprint prefix, one with SAVVIS. Of course, that solution assumes that the exit routers are capable of choosing the exit route based on the source address picked by the host, which is a *big* assumption. I suppose that if there is enough demand, Cisco, Juniper et al will come up with such routers.
If that works, you get the equivalent of each host having multiple "virtual network cards", one for each provider. Of course, they do not in fact have multiple cards, just multiple addresses.
Failing that, the big organizations will pay their providers large sums and get a short prefix (/32, probably) that will be routed. The small folks will be left hanging.
IPv4 dates back to 1981. At the time, I'm sure handing out Class A's did not seem such a bad idea. Noone at the time expected IPv4 to be the be all end all of network addressing, they expected it to be used for awhile and then replaced by something else. Back in 1980, did you think there would be a personal computer (or several) on every desk and in every home, all connected to a global internet tying every on of them together? This is a good 10 years before most people ever heard of the "Information superhighway". The people participating and building the network, getting it off the ground, got large chunks of addresses to use as they saw fit. That sounds fair to me. Is it fair for people to wait until others made a massive investment in the network, and after it becomes wildly successful, to then demand they byproduct of their investment?
Noone could have expected IPv4 would achieve the status it has today, noone predicted address scarcity being a problem before a better protocol could be designed and implemented. Presumably the designers, being intelligent, reasonable men, expected other intelligent, reasonable men to follow them, capable of implementing upgrades to add new address space as the demand required and the technology was available. Unfortunately the internet devolved into being led by squabbling, political maneuvering, corrupt fuckheads. I don't think it's fair to blame the original designers for that.
"Better politely and PLEASENTLY letting them know that there's a problem."
Visiting in person and spitting the dummy can be deeply satisfying...
I came back to a busy mobile phone store for the fourth time regarding enabling a AU-$30 sim chip, I had also had several lengthy conversations with the phone company over that time. I went through the story (again) with a disinterested "manager" who said it was the phone companies fault, however I used to work for the telco so at this point I knew he was making excuses to brush me off and get back to earning comissions from the 30-40 people milling round the store. I had also just been watching him successfully use the same routine on the woman he served before me.
My blood started simmering but I kept a lid on it and said I no longer cared who's fault it was I just wanted my money back, he replied that the phone company had my money, I said (with a raised voice) "I don't care about the fucking phone company, I gave the money to you". He forcefully refused again claiming he no longer had the money. I replied with some loud random abuse and then picked up a display box of leaflets from the counter and threw them in the air along with the sim chip and paperwork. The "manger" was now tripping over a printer trying to back away into his office - I am at heart a "gental giant", realising I had already scared the shit out of the guy I calmed down.
I quietly turned around to leave and to my surprised delight the previously packed shop was now completely deserted, even his staff had run off! Most memorable $30 I ever spent, my kids still rib me about it 10yrs after the fact.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.