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?"

Comments

bullshit

[shentino]

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.

Re:bullshit

[NoYob]

I wonder if a complaint or enough of them to the FCC would get them to comply.

But yeah, definitely take any and all legal recourse.

Re:bullshit

[nacturation]

That's some fine internet tough talk, but realistically the best solution open to the common man is to simply vote with your dollars and leave. Verizon is probably happy enough to let a squeaky wheel out of any time contract, if they really are in violation, knowing that the unwashed masses will not notice these kinds of failings.

The problem is if the six month install process came with a hefty price tag (article is Slashdotted, so can't read up on it). Voting with your feet and going elsewhere implies a massive sunk cost that may not be recoverable, depending on how open the fiber accessibility is to other providers.

Re:bullshit

[ZekoMal]

That's some fine internet tough talk, but realistically the best solution open to the common man is to simply vote with your dollars and leave.

I'm sick of this excuse. Voting with your dollar works when your dollar is the only dollar. When millions of other people have dollars and a good chunk of them are ignorant, your dollar won't be missed. I took my dollar away from Verizon years ago, and there's a good chance that many others did the same thing.

There are three methods to dealing with businesses: you can let them do whatever they want to you, you can quietly go elsewhere, or you can speak up loudly and take them to court. The first method makes the business happy, the second makes you feel good about yourself but does very little, and the third lets everyone hear what evils the company did and how they handle it, thus making more people make decisions of their own. Seeing as how all of the duopolies and monopolies and x-opolies are still thriving despite the silent treatment, I would think a more aggressive approach is the only way to fight back.

Re:bullshit

[kimvette]

The problem is if the six month install process came with a hefty price tag (article is Slashdotted, so can't read up on it)

Coral cache: http://www.rollernet.us.nyud.net:8090/wordpress/2009/10/verizon-refuses-to-provide-complete-ipv6/

If you use the "slashdotter" Firefox extension, it will automatically insert coralcache, mirrordot, and google cache links into the summary for you.

Re:bullshit

[c0d3g33k]

A-fscking-men! Thanks for the wonderful and insightful comment. When I've posted comments on forums to voice a grievance along with a promise to never buy a product from company X again, the response I've gotten from the "Company X employee" can often be paraphrased as "so what? You're not buying our product so you're not a customer. Why should we care what you think?". Voting with your dollar doesn't cause enough pain to get attention - there are enough other uninformed customers to keep the cash flowing in. Evil can't stand the light of day, so drawing public attention to demonstrably bad practices (to avoid libel lawsuits) is more likely to get their attention.

Re:bullshit

[witherstaff]

Go with your state Public Utilities Commission. In my ISP days any disputes I had that I took to the PUC would get resolved rather quickly. The FCC doesn't care, Verizon lobbies them far more than a user ever could.

Re:bullshit

[Stolovaya]

If there was any realistic way to be a competitor, sure. But it's a pretty locked market.

Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor

[mysidia]

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.

Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor

[glennpratt]

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.

I wonder

[DaMattster]

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.

You aren't seeing the whole picture

[davidwr]

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.

Re:You aren't seeing the whole picture

[mysidia]

That would be OLTPC or OLNATPC

Actually, n/m, come to think of it.. many to one translations are commonly called PAT, NAPT, PNAT, or "Overload NAT".

Oh, and though it may be a matter of debate, some folks swear that it's incorrect to call those NAT.

So OLPPC (One layer of PAT per citizen) or OLNPPC (One layer of Network and Port Address translation per citizen), OLNAPTPC, or respectively OLNAPTC OLPNATPC, or OLNPC

But not OLPC...

Oh, what were we talking about again?

It's either IPv6 or carrier-grade NAT or ???

[davidwr]

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.

Re:change of contract

[Glendale2x]

They very conveniently lost the original order (where I disclosed exactly what I required, down to what networks I will announce) and the circuit was delivered as IPv4-only in August. With a static /29. Without BGP. All of this was a huge shock to the provisioning team on the first call when I started talking BGP for IPv4. It took over a month to get them to change it to dual-stack and re-engineer the endpoint to go to a different city that had IPv6 support after I forwarded them all of my copies. And then they pulled this out of their hat. Oh, don't forget that my account manager was fired in September and the new one won't accept my calls. It's a huge fucked up mess.

I must admit, I never figured that complaining about Verizon sucking would make the front page of slashdot.

I've used dual-stack IPv6 with IPv4 NAT for 2 yrs!

[cwolfsheep]

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.