[168064] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon FIOS IPv6?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen Frost)
Tue Jan 7 23:29:06 2014
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 23:28:51 -0500
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLaYeatS-YmfB3MdHB9HPOC2CY5DTAc3vWkNoMqXvEGz3vw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
* Christopher Morrow (morrowc.lists@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 10:56 PM, Adam Rothschild <asr@latency.net> wrote:
> > I've heard of folk in and around the NYC metro getting set up for v6
> > by escalating through their commercial account teams, or the field
>=20
> 'commercial account teams' =3D=3D business customers?
As a FIOS business customer, I can say that I've had no progress on that
front, though I've bugged them about it often enough... Perhaps I shall
try again though. I would truely love to hear from one of these folks
in NYC who managed to get it...
> > implementation is shameful, and should be called out wherever
> > possible.
>=20
> yes :( it's nice that the Networx contract didn't require any ipv6 readin=
ess...
There's a US government mandate for government public websites to
support IPv6 and quite a few of those do- in some cases through Networx.
I don't recall agencies complaining about the inability to get IPv6 for
public websites via Networx either. Additionally, most of the services
under the Networx contract are more traditional telecom services which
don't particularly care what you run over them.
As for having Networx require IPv6 support for all services- some of us
tried, and while a nice idea, I doubt it would have lasted terribly long
post-award even if it had been included for the few IP-based services
which were part of the original contract. Sadly, having been involved
in government contracting, it's amazing what happens when the vendor
says "we want to provide $awesome, but we need you to waive this *one*
little thing" and there isn't a mandate (afair...) for agencies to run
IPv6 internally (tho they're supposed to be buying devices which
*support* it).
I will say that the more the agencies complain to GSA the highest the
chance of something being done about it.
Thanks,
Stephen
--YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)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=lRZt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--YZ5djTAD1cGYuMQK--
