There isn't a middle ground. Leased lines like T1 and T3 are tariffed. Ethernet, DSL, and cable aren't so they can do stupid crap with pricing and service 'till the cows come home. There's usually an SLA on a T1 and that adds some cost. Although you can get a T1 for $400 to $700 these days, that's still way too much for exactly what you're talking about. Forget pricing out multilink T1 for 3 meg fixed.
But you are getting what you paid for. The last time I checked (and I admit I don't check that often) you are paying for "up to" speed x down and "up to" speed y upload. The advertising says "up to", the terms say "up to". It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
I'll check AT&T right now in my area. att.com, internet & dsl, enter my zip... Hmm, they don't even show speeds, they call it "fast" and "faster" and "fastest". Let's click on what they call "faster" for more details... Oh, here we go:
Downstream Speed: Up to 3.0 Mbps Upstream Speed: Up to 512 Kbps IP Address: 1 Dynamic
Look, it's those key words: UP TO. Now let's try Charter, the only other game in my area. charter.com and click on internet and lookie here, there's the "up to" words again for each service package's downstream bandwidth. One less click than AT&T.
Stop yelling that you're not getting what you paid for. As long as you bought a package that says "up to" and the fine print doesn't specify a minimum bandwidth rate, you most certainly are getting what you paid for. Next time buy a package advertised as a fixed speed and not "up to" some huge number that looks good.
Comcast main service description if you search by your zipcode and look at the "Performance" plan: "Get download speeds up to 12 Mbps and uploads up to 2 Mbps with PowerBoost® for only $19.99 a month for 6 months!"
The key words are "up to" when they describe the up/down rate.
There's 480p. Fox tried that as their standard (they called it widscreen enhanced or something) for a while before getting a clue and going with HD like everyone else. A lot of cheaper-than-HD "enhanced definition" TV's were on the market that were 480p.
In all honesty suing them and lawyers never crossed my mind. I do want to bring attention to major IPv6 adoption obstacles such as this and try to work with them to change things for the better as long as they are willing to listen.
Fascinating. Is there a corresponding document somewhere explaining how this is supposed to be implemented? It seems to defeat one of the design criteria of IPv6, i.e., keeping routing tables simple.
You are correct that it does defeat the routing table simplicity goal because implementation of multihoming is exactly the same as it is with IPv4. This happened because IPv6 was left without a sane way to multihome. I don't know what block RIPE will use, but AFRINIC (2001:43F8::/29), and APNIC (2001:0DF0::/29) also have a similar policy to ARIN.
Someone already covered the "no that's now how IPv4 works" (unless you're talking about your residential service), so I'll just add that if you keep reading, I outlined how even if one were to use their address, you still can't get global access. Some of the advertisements in 2620:: are from universities, HP, and IBM in addition to regular multihomed sites. The fact that my IPv6 network is already more reachable than not on a global scale already flies in the face of their argument.
Please feel free to send test results for ipv6.rollernet.us (2620:0:950:f140:2d0:b7ff:fee6:574) on reachability if you have IPv6 access.
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)?
Of course, I sent all of it (including emails between order coordinators and their confirmations back) to them when they turned it up without any IPv6 at all and I said "uh, that's not what I ordered, here look at all this."
So the first question I'd want answered would be: which backbone provider do those blocks belong to?
A whole lot of different ones. They're ARIN's PI multihoming block.
I may be mistaken, but it's my understanding that IPv6 addresses, unlike IPv4 addresses, include information about the backbone provider, so you really can't get your own allocation from ARIN and expect an ISP to route it for you. It doesn't (or isn't supposed to) work like that, for good reason. So, if the missing blocks are people who aren't backbone providers but have some kind of back-door deal with Sprint and/or Hurricane Electric, Verizon may be in the right.
You wouldn't have been mistaken before 2006. ARIN does allow you to get your own IPv6:
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.
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.
Yes, this is the problem. Unfortunately then you'll hit the "well, just because ARIN says so doesn't mean we have to route it" excuse, which is what I'm waiting for them to come back with on Monday.
#2 made me laugh. What don't they have their hand in these days? I miss Google when it was just a damned good search engine. Now they're trying to be the Microsoft of the internet and being mediocre at a lot of it.
HTC just gives you different problems. Like lack of drivers causing craptastic performance and no intention of releasing them. See htcclassaction.org for details. I had a PPC-6800; horrible piece of junk it was coming from a Treo 700wx. Luckily the workplace bought it and I went back to my Treo after quitting.
The last time I was in an Apple store they were using those "alarm goes off when you unplug me" type security devices built in to the Ethernet cables, not the physical lock attachment ones.
Slashdot Mirror
There isn't a middle ground. Leased lines like T1 and T3 are tariffed. Ethernet, DSL, and cable aren't so they can do stupid crap with pricing and service 'till the cows come home. There's usually an SLA on a T1 and that adds some cost. Although you can get a T1 for $400 to $700 these days, that's still way too much for exactly what you're talking about. Forget pricing out multilink T1 for 3 meg fixed.
But you are getting what you paid for. The last time I checked (and I admit I don't check that often) you are paying for "up to" speed x down and "up to" speed y upload. The advertising says "up to", the terms say "up to". It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
I'll check AT&T right now in my area. att.com, internet & dsl, enter my zip... Hmm, they don't even show speeds, they call it "fast" and "faster" and "fastest". Let's click on what they call "faster" for more details... Oh, here we go:
Downstream Speed: Up to 3.0 Mbps
Upstream Speed: Up to 512 Kbps
IP Address: 1 Dynamic
Look, it's those key words: UP TO. Now let's try Charter, the only other game in my area. charter.com and click on internet and lookie here, there's the "up to" words again for each service package's downstream bandwidth. One less click than AT&T.
Stop yelling that you're not getting what you paid for. As long as you bought a package that says "up to" and the fine print doesn't specify a minimum bandwidth rate, you most certainly are getting what you paid for. Next time buy a package advertised as a fixed speed and not "up to" some huge number that looks good.
Comcast main service description if you search by your zipcode and look at the "Performance" plan:
"Get download speeds up to 12 Mbps and uploads up to 2 Mbps with PowerBoost® for only $19.99 a month for 6 months!"
The key words are "up to" when they describe the up/down rate.
There's 480p. Fox tried that as their standard (they called it widscreen enhanced or something) for a while before getting a clue and going with HD like everyone else. A lot of cheaper-than-HD "enhanced definition" TV's were on the market that were 480p.
Addendum to my previous response: APNIC and AFRINIC also issue PI IPv6.
In all honesty suing them and lawyers never crossed my mind. I do want to bring attention to major IPv6 adoption obstacles such as this and try to work with them to change things for the better as long as they are willing to listen.
Fascinating. Is there a corresponding document somewhere explaining how this is supposed to be implemented? It seems to defeat one of the design criteria of IPv6, i.e., keeping routing tables simple.
You are correct that it does defeat the routing table simplicity goal because implementation of multihoming is exactly the same as it is with IPv4. This happened because IPv6 was left without a sane way to multihome. I don't know what block RIPE will use, but AFRINIC (2001:43F8::/29), and APNIC (2001:0DF0::/29) also have a similar policy to ARIN.
I know it is a bummer but ARIN should not have issued PI addresses.
Don't forget that RIPE allows PI /48's too, so we aren't talking about just the ARIN region.
Someone already covered the "no that's now how IPv4 works" (unless you're talking about your residential service), so I'll just add that if you keep reading, I outlined how even if one were to use their address, you still can't get global access. Some of the advertisements in 2620:: are from universities, HP, and IBM in addition to regular multihomed sites. The fact that my IPv6 network is already more reachable than not on a global scale already flies in the face of their argument.
Please feel free to send test results for ipv6.rollernet.us (2620:0:950:f140:2d0:b7ff:fee6:574) on reachability if you have IPv6 access.
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.
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)?
Of course, I sent all of it (including emails between order coordinators and their confirmations back) to them when they turned it up without any IPv6 at all and I said "uh, that's not what I ordered, here look at all this."
So the first question I'd want answered would be: which backbone provider do those blocks belong to?
A whole lot of different ones. They're ARIN's PI multihoming block.
I may be mistaken, but it's my understanding that IPv6 addresses, unlike IPv4 addresses, include information about the backbone provider, so you really can't get your own allocation from ARIN and expect an ISP to route it for you. It doesn't (or isn't supposed to) work like that, for good reason. So, if the missing blocks are people who aren't backbone providers but have some kind of back-door deal with Sprint and/or Hurricane Electric, Verizon may be in the right.
You wouldn't have been mistaken before 2006. ARIN does allow you to get your own IPv6:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2005_1.html
I believe RIPE is following suit next month.
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.
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.
Yes, this is the problem. Unfortunately then you'll hit the "well, just because ARIN says so doesn't mean we have to route it" excuse, which is what I'm waiting for them to come back with on Monday.
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 on an OC-12. They're filtering using BGP prefix lists.
#2 made me laugh. What don't they have their hand in these days? I miss Google when it was just a damned good search engine. Now they're trying to be the Microsoft of the internet and being mediocre at a lot of it.
I know you're joking, but that may come as a surprise to a lot of people.
Your paper check most likely ends up in their ACH database by virtue of it being processed electronically anyway.
HTC just gives you different problems. Like lack of drivers causing craptastic performance and no intention of releasing them. See htcclassaction.org for details. I had a PPC-6800; horrible piece of junk it was coming from a Treo 700wx. Luckily the workplace bought it and I went back to my Treo after quitting.
The last time I was in an Apple store they were using those "alarm goes off when you unplug me" type security devices built in to the Ethernet cables, not the physical lock attachment ones.
Google is waiting for everyone to switch to them before they change their mind. ;)
Whoa there wayback machine! I remember "teen lines", although I used mine to keep the modem dialed up 24/7.
No archiving is ever too expensive to avoid getting your ass handed to you by lawyers.