[169490] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon FIOS IPv6?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Justin M. Streiner)
Thu Feb 27 23:15:48 2014
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 20:03:35 -0500 (EST)
From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner@cluebyfour.org>
To: Tristan Lear <trissypissy@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <b3d7ad0b-038d-4595-bd13-6e51bff81bab@getmailbird.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, 27 Feb 2014, Tristan Lear wrote:
> We have a business-class FIOS=C2=A0connection where I work and a static=
=20
> IP=C2=A0as well. At least three people who work here have FIOS=C2=A0at ho=
me.=20
> I've read rumors about business class customers who really work their=20
> phone sex getting native ipv6, and I also heard somethin about static=20
> ip's. So I'll try that, and also mention that "we're transitioning our=20
> employees who remote in from home to FIOS but we'd like ipv6=C2=A0for=20
> ...=C2=A0VPN purposes, NAT traversal, etc ..." I mean, that should get th=
em=20
> a little wet right?
Not likely. Verizon is a very expensive date, so you *really* have to=20
open the wallet to make that kind of impression, and by that point, you're=
=20
working with VZ Enterprise, which is what used to be UUNET, where v6 is=20
easy to get, so the point ends up being moot.
> I have a bit of a hairbrained theory that the reason ISP's=C2=A0have=20
> stagnated on ipv6 has to do with relationship between capitalism and=20
> scarcity. Having a limited quantity of anything makes it more valuable.=
=20
> Why wouldn't that apply to IP's?
I doubt it's anything quite so nefarious, though VZ trying to figure out=20
how to monetize their IPv6 rollout is certainly a possibility.
I've heard all sorts of BS answers as to why there is no v6 for FIOS, such=
=20
as:
1. "We're having problems getting it to work on our set-top boxes." So=20
go dual-stack and let the set-top boxes stay v4 until the problem gets=20
worked out. VZ has already stated that dual-stack is the way thry're=20
going to do it.
2. "We have plenty of IPv4 space." Perhaps today, yes, but that misses=20
the point entirely.
jms
