Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Verizon Refuses To Provide Complete IPv6

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the no-routing-around-it dept.

Networking 438

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?"

cancel ×

438 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

bullshit (5, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639317)

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 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29639331)

no

Re:bullshit (2, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639361)

...they need their asses spanked in court, big time.

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.

Re:bullshit (5, Informative)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639521)

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 (5, Informative)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639571)

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/ [nyud.net]

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

Re:bullshit (5, Interesting)

ZekoMal (1404259) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639539)

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 (2, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639573)

I'm sick of this excuse. Voting with your dollar works when your dollar is the only dollar.

It's not an excuse, it's a realization of the grim truth. Reread my post, we agree that it won't change Verizon's actions. It *will* free you individually from the failings of Verizon. That's about as good as it gets these days.

Re:bullshit (4, Informative)

paul248 (536459) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639619)

It won't free you from the failings of Verizon if you happen to be on one of the networks they omit from their routing table.

Re:bullshit (4, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639779)

Nothing you do will guarantee that *every* corporation in the world will do *everything* to your satisfaction, including suing Verizon.

But if you control a company that can afford the financial resources and distraction from your business to go head to head in an extended legal battle with Verizon, then get to it and report back! I'm genuinely interested to hear the results.

Re:bullshit (1)

c0d3g33k (102699) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639829)

With that attitude you can be sure you won't get better than that. Nobody said fighting the good fight wouldn't be work.

You: "You have cheated me, sir! I demand retribution!"

Them: "Go suck an egg, loser! You can't make me!"

You: "Oh well, I'm taking my business elsewhere!".

Next unscrupulous business: "Look - here comes another rube! Let's see how much we can take him for before he bolts." If you walk away quietly to avoid confrontation or because you think you have to take the abuse, you deserve what you get. This includes something as simple as poor service or a corked bottle of wine at a restaurant. You don't have to be an ass about it, but politely and firmly letting them know you are unhappy and are willing take measures to get what you paid for *does* get results. These days, "I'm going to write about you in my blog" is as effective a stick as "I live next door to the local restaurant critic - he'll be extremely happy to stop by" used to be. If he has a blog, even that still works. If you think like a sheep, that's exactly how you will be treated.

Re:bullshit (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29639587)

Furthermore, taking your dollar elsewhere assumes that dollar can be used on an alternative. Here in the US, broadband generally means two or three options, cable or DSL, and if you're really lucky, FiOS. Although the latter being Verizon is already suffering from greed, now that they've ramped up in price, plus added extra fees to the service, especially if you don't use them as your telco.

Re:bullshit (2, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639773)

So what you're saying is that if you're a prisoner of a monopoly you should WHINE as loudly as you possibly can. Rather than, say, starting a competitor.. or just accepting that nothing you do in life matters.

Re:bullshit (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29639613)

I would think a more aggressive approach is the only way to fight back.

So what you're saying is, we should start cutting their fiber until they don't suck anymore?

Re:bullshit (2, Insightful)

PNutts (199112) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639729)

...or you can speak up loudly and take them to court.

Let me guess. You're an attorney? 'Cause that's where all the dollars go when you take that action. But good luck and if you win, enjoy that coupon for a free cellphone with the purchase of another.

Re:bullshit (5, Interesting)

c0d3g33k (102699) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639735)

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 (5, Insightful)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639383)

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.

I don't think IPv6 is really the future any more.. (1, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639337)

I think IPv6 is going to end up as another VCD (Video CD). That is, a pre-mature solution that won't ever actually see wide-scale adoption, but will merely fill the space until the _real_ solution is invented (out of genuine necessity).. which will probably be widely adopted quite quickly.

Lets face it.. we've been on the brink of running out of IP's in the IPv4 space for _years_... and life has continued. One day we will... but I think by that point a better technology than IPv6 will have been invented to fix the problem.. and IPv6 will be viewed as a bad dream :(

That being said.. the situation you describe is complete bullshit.. and inherently _everything_ we've come to expect from a large telco

Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (5, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639363)

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 (3, Insightful)

NNKK (218503) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639401)

"Carrier-grade NAT" is not a solution, it's an oxymoron, and one that has already been rejected by the real world.

Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (3, Informative)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639453)

Except China. The latest figure I've heard is six levels of NAT in some places.

You aren't seeing the whole picture (5, Funny)

davidwr (791652) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639553)

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 (5, Funny)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639679)

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?

Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29639783)

I'm assuming you don't have much experience in the real world. I am an architect on a fairly large network. 100,000 active unique DHCP's per day. We use PAT EXTENSIVELY. Unless you have a very specific reason to have a real world external IP, you don't get one. And very few people get externals. We usually give 1:1 NAT's before externals.

Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (2, Interesting)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639439)

IPv4 Exhaustion is expected approximately 734 days from today's date. That is just about 2 years.

Right, and they have been saying two years for about 12 years now. Just like how we've been 10 years away from running out of oil for close to 40 years, and about 10 years away from commercialized fusion for about the same amount of time.

Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639481)

IPv4 is a measurable finite resource. There are 2^32 of them. You can plot it on a graph fairly accurately.

Yes, but watch for... (3, Interesting)

Junta (36770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639531)

-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.

It's either IPv6 or carrier-grade NAT or ??? (5, Interesting)

davidwr (791652) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639583)

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:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (2, Insightful)

serdagger (879079) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639617)

I'm not sure what the rules are on reselling IP-addresses (is it up to the individual IPv4 registries?), but even finite resources never truly run out, they just get more expensive over time (see Hotelling's rule [wikipedia.org] ). With a liquid-enough market in IP addresses, it get's even better (Hotelling's rule assumes the resource is used up, like oil, not reusable, like IP addresses). As the price of IP addresses goes up, more and more work will be put into NAT or similar workarounds (like how HTTP 1.1 introduced the host header), as those efforts will suddenly become cost effective. People who really need raw IP addresses will always be able to get them, just for a price. It is kinda similar to oil in that plotting current trends is always going to be misleading, as that will overlook the effect of future innovations. I actually like IPv6. I just highly doubt the dire predictions about what will happen to IPv4 734 days fraom now.

Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (2, Informative)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639685)

Reselling IP addresses is exceedingly difficult unless you do it under the table.

Strictly speaking, it's explicitly not allowed in most regions.

Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639811)

That's like the claim that species never go extinct.

While it's true that THIS finite resource will never run out, because there will always be the same number if addresses, that's not what you said. And this sloppy thinking infects the rest of your argument.

E.g., NAT is already used in a large fraction of the cases where it is a satisfactory solution. This means that it will increasingly be used in cases where it's not a satisfactory solution, because there isn't any alternative.

OTOH, I agree that 734 days is too precise a prediction. I'd have said somewhere in the range of 600-1000 days. And there will be a continued dribble of a supply as entities drop their IP that will last for at least years. But it will be just a trickle supply.

However, I haven't heard of any technical problem with IPv6...though I admit I haven't been paying attention. To me it looks as if the only problem is lack of adoption by the nets. And I'm not sure if there's any reason for that beyond inertia.

Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639505)

Let us know when the exact number of available IPv4 addresses is in dispute. A comparison to oil in this context is absurd.

Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (4, Informative)

ekhben (628371) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639515)

[citation needed]

In 2003, RIPE NCC [ripe.net] 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 :-)

Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (2, Interesting)

peragrin (659227) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639781)

Not sure about him but I was told 2050 for oil reserves 15 years ago. Not ten years. Cold fusion research is random about every 10 years a major break through happens with a media saying that we will have it in another 10 years.

Of course listening to the media is like listening to fox news. you don't get anything useful if your an open minded intelligent person. the rhetoric and misdirection is just too much.

Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (1, Troll)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639581)

IPv4 Exhaustion is expected approximately 734 days from today's date. That is just about 2 years.

Remember the story about the boy who cried wolf? Yah. This is that.

Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (3, Insightful)

paul248 (536459) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639643)

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.

Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639691)

Yeah, except for I've been hearing the "two more years" stuff for at least the last 5 if not the last 10 years. Always 2 more years. And those years have passed and we haven't run out yet.

Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (1)

paul248 (536459) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639755)

Citation needed. The only predictions I ever recall hearing were "Sometime around 2010-2012".

Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (2, Informative)

cptdondo (59460) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639639)

No it won't. It will be some bandaid solution thought of at the last minute that will patch things together until the current crop of CEOs get their golden parachutes.

Sorry, but I'm very cynical on this. Few businesses are "forward looking"; most look back to the heyday when life was good and want nothing to do with any new invention if they can help it. Look at the entertainment industry, the paper press industry, the telecom industry... They've all been fighting new tech for years.

Heck, if it was up to AT&T we'd all be dialing on our Princess Phones.

Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (1)

Drinking Bleach (975757) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639365)

IPv6 is a very mature solution. The reason you've been hearing about the IPv4 space running out for years is because it's been prepared for, for about that long of a time. Estimates as to when it'll run out haven't drastically changed, although we are now much closer to the point than we were five years ago :-)

Plus I have an IPv6 connection and home and I'm loving it!

Lack of support by vendors (1)

kaiwai (765866) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639455)

How many vendors right now are still deploying products that don't have ipv6? how many of these companies who could provide firmware updates won't so that they can simply force hardware upgrades on users? ipv6 can be easily switched in 6months if the networking hardware companies were willing to provide free firmware updates for hardware up to 2 years old. If they did that we'd be talking about ipv6 coming in 6months instead of the current situation of non-existance.

Re:Lack of support by vendors (1)

paul248 (536459) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639549)

As long as the ISPs and core infrastructure support IPv6, it doesn't really matter if the crappy end-user routers do. Users who don't care about end-to-end will stay behind their carrier-grade NAT. Users who figure out that IPv6 will make their torrents go faster will go buy the IPv6-capable hardware.

Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (1)

lucifuge31337 (529072) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639879)

IPv6 is a very mature solution.

No. No it is not. Speaking of only things off the top of my head that affect my business: IPv6 at an aggregation router level that can handle complex ACLs only exists in the highest end hardware (meaning MUCH more expensive gear than what I need for IPv4 - as in 3x the cost or more). Most SIP hardware vendors simply don't support IPv6 (think session border controllers and RTP proxies), client side software is no better, and I'm not away of a single major termination carrier that supports it, nor any origination. So, if it doesn't even work for one narrow case (VoIP wholesale/retail blend), just how many others do you think are out there where it's simply not ready? I'm going to guess A LOT, because my business is just not all that out of the ordinary.

Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (1)

NNKK (218503) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639367)

I'm sure Comcast will find it very interesting to know that their impending deployment of IPv6 to millions of devices will have all been a bad dream.

If you don't know what's actually going on behind the scenes with IPv6, I suggest you stop talking. You just make yourself look silly.

Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29639759)

I'm sure Comcast will find it very interesting to know that their impending deployment of IPv6 to millions of devices will have all been a bad dream.

If you don't know what's actually going on behind the scenes with IPv6, I suggest you stop talking. You just make yourself look silly.

You know what else makes one look silly? When you complain about someone else's ignorance without enlightening us all as to how that person is mistaken and what the truth of the matter might be. And no, saying "Comcast is using IPV6" doesn't tell us anything about the other providers and how quickly those others are exhausting IPV4 addresses. If you're going to be this much of a dick about it, you should back it up with something more than a one-liner.

And yes, we know you're the supreme master of superior IP knowledge, your shit doesn't stink, and you can walk on water. You're just a better human being than anyone who doesn't hvave all the facts about IPV6, so your blatantly condescending reply is completely justfied. Feel better now? Good. Now quit putting down the GP and answer my request, please.

Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (3, Insightful)

conureman (748753) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639377)

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.

Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29639385)

I think IPv6 is going to end up as another VCD (Video CD).

It's gonna be HUGE in Asia (for a time) while being ignored by the rest of the world?

Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639407)

another VCD (Video CD)

You mean it will be widely deployed in Asia, be very cheap, better compression and without DRM?
Sounds good.

Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (5, Interesting)

glennpratt (1230636) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639413)

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.

Only one thing "wrong" with IPv6 vs. IPv4-NAT (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639611)

You actually have to twiddle a setting to block all incoming unsolicited connections! *cue rim shot*

Thank you, thank you, catch my next show tomorrow night and every night at:
http://192.168.0.1/davidwr/shows [192.168.0.1]

Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29639597)

VCD's never caught on in the U.S. or Europe, but they were quite important in East Asia. According to Professor Wikipedia, over half of all Chinese have a VCD player.
 
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_cd#Adoption [wikipedia.org]

Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29639677)

IPv4 is already a problem for certain industries.

Take mobile networks for example. How many cell phones are out there? How many smartphones with web browsers? How much private IP space is available? These technologies use IP, and it is becoming a serious network deployment issue. I guarantee you that there is no way in hell that Verizon would be able to get themselves a /6 (64 million ips) of ipv4 space in order to solve their problems - and that might not quite do it either. It's not just the phones, its every GSM/UTMS network device in between as well.

The average person in the first world is already probably using 2-3 IP addresses themselves, and it's only going to get worse. Just wait another 5 years until most (currently) second world countries, say another 2.5 billion people, start moving into that range.

NAT saved us a lot of time. That is why life has continued. But it's starting to reach the end of its use - we've consolidated and masked things too much. Some industries of which I have involvement are already duplicating 10/8 multiple times in order to be able to continue. IPv6 MUST happen, and preferably not too far from now.

Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639769)

How much private IP space is available?

Hypothetically, assuming only one tier of NAT, could be around 4 quadrillion or so. Beyond what is reasonable, but suffice to say, even the fanciest phones can get by without a universally addressable IP for 99.9% of their users, and I anticipate the cellular carriers to take full advantage of that before putting users on IPv6, effectively 'breaking' most of the 'real' internet as far as their customers would observe and think of it. A lot would be easier with managing their network with globally unique addresses, but as it stands they could segregate management of phones such that 16 million are in one 10. namespace, another 16 million are in a distinct 10. namespace, etc etc.

Re:I don't think IPv6 is really the future any mor (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639873)

IPv6 itself isn't a premature technology. If suddenly adopted every where, the world would ultimately not have the NAT problem anymore. The problem is that no solution that would extend the address space can exist and be perfectly inter-operable with IPv4 during a transitional period.

Have some blessed strategy to have IPv6->IPv4 NAT in place at the ISP level, and it's feasible. Problem is, that would have to compete with the more straightforward case of IPv4->IPv4 NAT that is much cheaper to strategize around. Sadly, it looks more and more like the 'real' solution is the NAT we have today, as it fits the needs of 95% of the internet users even if you took their one public IP address away.

Verizon are just protecting you (4, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639351)

From the EVIL 29% of the internet.

Re:Verizon are just protecting you (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29639373)

AT&T ?

Re:Verizon are just protecting you (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639431)

Does IPv6 have the Evil Bit?

Re:Verizon are just protecting you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29639513)

No, the evil octal. 666.

(Yes, I know that's invalid for IP's, but that's why it's so EEEEVIL.)

Re:Verizon are just protecting you (1)

dazjorz (1312303) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639705)

Invalid for IP's? IPv6 has it! *proceeds to ping6 2001:666:666:666:666:666:666:666*

Re:Verizon are just protecting you (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29639711)

666 is not invalid. It would actually be 0666, but shorted is 666

Re:Verizon are just protecting you (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639821)

Dancing turtles are indeed quite evil.

Order Accepted? (4, Insightful)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639369)

Does that imply there was a contract between you and Verizon? If so you should pursue them for breach.

maybe AT&T is better(?) (2, Interesting)

UncleWilly (1128141) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639379)

Maybe AT&T is better; I just came off a two year contract at Verizon, supporting provisioning tools for your very product. For years the big push at Verizon has been to off-shore. I'm not sure they really understand Data they way they run "worldcom/MCI".

If it was my money, I would try AT&T, they are way bigger (I hear) than Verizon in the Data arena.

Google Cache link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29639381)

Re:Google Cache link (3, Funny)

paul248 (536459) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639409)

Fail. Looks like Slashdot doesn't provide complete IPv6 either.

Re:Google Cache link (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29639511)

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.

slashdotted wordpress install... any details ? (1)

johnjones (14274) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639391)

so are you saying that the ISP is filtering the packets ?

can you tell what equipment they are using ?

personally I wish ISP's would just send out routers that where IPv6 compliant (are you listening British Telecom...)

regards

John Jones

Re:slashdotted wordpress install... any details ? (2, Informative)

Glendale2x (210533) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639441)

This is on an OC-12. They're filtering using BGP prefix lists.

I concur... (1)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639395)

ipv6 access to rollernet.us seems to be down.

Either that, or your site's been slashdotted...

Re:I concur... (3, Informative)

Glendale2x (210533) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639465)

Server's overloaded. I didn't expect me complaining about Verizon would hit the front page. Trying to convert it to a static page.

One fact the story left out (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29639415)

That 29%? All porn. And we're talking good stuff, too.

Almost all redundant porn (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639641)

Since 99.44% of the Interwebs are porn, odds are you aren't missing much unique material.

29% (2, Funny)

Scutter (18425) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639423)

They're missing around 29% of the IPv6 internet and refuse to carry it.

That's because 28% of it is 4chan and the other 1% is unaccounted-for dark matter.

Obvious answer... (3, Insightful)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639435)

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.

Re:Obvious answer... (2, Interesting)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639741)

That sounds great on paper. But in the real world you often don't have a choice between providers. Even if there isn't an official monopoly the carriers hate laying redundant cabling and won't service an area covered by someone else and would rather invest in areas where they don't have to compete for customers.

Re:Obvious answer... (1)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639789)

Most civilized areas have at least two options. If you live in the woods in a cabin, you get a lack of choices. It's your own damn fault for choosing to live where companies don't go (because there's no customers).

Re:Obvious answer... (1)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639805)

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.

Since when did customers (they're not consumers*) decide that the purpose of corporations is to serve them, and any corporation that is unwilling or unable to do so does not deserve their business? I missed that meeting...


* If you like, I'll explain that one. The two terms are not interchangeable unless you're a fan of Newspeak.

I wonder (5, Insightful)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639495)

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.

Re:I wonder (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639699)

They can charge for publicly available IP addresses with IPv4. In IPv6, every address would be public.

All IP addresses issued by an ISP for its customers are "public".

I think what you're referring to is non-dynamic (static) IP addresses. For that ISPs do charge more, but then they give you extra addresses (typically a /29 block instead of a single address), and remove certain "restrictions" applicable to most other customers.

Granted, for that kind of setup, an increased monthly fee vs. a one-time provisioning charge does equate to pure profit for the ISP, though most such packages are packaged up and marketed as "business" or "super-whatever" accounts to make the extra monthly fees more palatable. Whatever your opinion of the business practices, and given the workarounds and hoops folks routinely jump through to deal with the shortcomings of a dynamic address, the benefit of static IPs for the customer aren't without value each and every month.

By public addresses.. (2, Interesting)

Junta (36770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639807)

I assume he refers to the ability to realistically have more than one public address in your house, whether it be static or dynamic in nature. I personally have one public IPv4 address and maybe half a dozen devices to share it.

And to extend on his point, I will bet in the next year or so ISPs will start issuing addresses to residences that are in a private subnet range and charge people extra for not being behind a NAT gateway (if they haven't already).

Re:I wonder (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639707)

Sounds about right to me. ISPs *are* that evil.

Re:I wonder (2, Informative)

Scooby Snacks (516469) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639761)

Nah, they could just slap on an "IPv6 fee" line-item that will never go away. If you have a land line, just take a look at it sometime and notice that you're getting charged for touch-tone service, and wonder if there's actually anybody *without* it anymore.

Re:I wonder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29639819)

Doubtful. The failed adoption of IPv6 means ISPs cannot acquire enough IPv4 addresses to satisfy customer growth. They want to expand their business. They are being forced to do carrier grade NAT which means NAT happens at the ISP since they need to share IP space. That also means they need to buy a new class of networking hardware to do this carrier NAT. These boxes will require large amount of logging & administration.

If IPv4 continues to be the plan going forward, it's a crappy deal for everyone.

If you think this is bad just wait for comcast to (0, Offtopic)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639517)

If you think this is bad just wait for comcast to bill you per ipv6 ip how about $5/m per system.

Re:If you think this is bad just wait for comcast (1)

paul248 (536459) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639589)

I expect RFC 3041 [faqs.org] will make that somewhat difficult.

how do you think they manage to "have the network" (1)

grapeape (137008) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639545)

Verizon has been notorious for seriously resticting its network usage on both the wired and wireless sides. When your able to shape things to minimal usage, its easier to have 5/9 service and minimize congestion.

BGP aggregation policy (3, Insightful)

chrylis (262281) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639579)

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.

Re:BGP aggregation policy (4, Interesting)

Glendale2x (210533) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639661)

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.

ipv6 is good for voip (3, Interesting)

h00manist (800926) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639631)

therefore, ipv6 is bad for Verizon?

Reminds Me of Asimov (1, Interesting)

Lord_Jeremy (1612839) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639647)

You know the whole story surrounding IPv4 and IPv6 really reminds of a cool short story written by Isaac Asimov called The Last Question [wikipedia.org] . It's really an awesome story about how ever-increasing entropy means that human life will someday run out of energy. It entails various people from vastly different periods in future human history posing the question what will happen when entropy reaches maximum, how to reverse it, and then reflecting on a temporary solution. For instance, humanity is running out of coal and whatnot so they turn to the Sun, yet two men discuss how that is only a temporary solution and so on.

Re:Reminds Me of Asimov (2, Interesting)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639883)

Relying on the sun is a pretty long term solution. If we're still using the sun for energy when the sun is about to expand and burn the planet, we have bigger problems than just energy...

change of contract (3, Interesting)

Eil (82413) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639649)

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. :)

Re:change of contract (5, Informative)

Glendale2x (210533) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639837)

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.

IPv6 adoption screwed by a few major factors (4, Insightful)

Junta (36770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639653)

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.

Re:IPv6 adoption screwed by a few major factors (1)

chrylis (262281) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639709)

Minor clarification: The difficulty isn't so much IPv6 clients talking to IPv4 hosts as it is the other way around. Mapping IPv4 addresses into IPv6 addresses is trivial (take a look at totd/ptrtd for an example), but IPv4 addresses don't map onto IPv6: Legacy hosts can't initiate connections to every address in the IPv6 space.

Load the big guns (1)

mhollis (727905) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639765)

Get in touch with your state's Attorney General, saying that they only notified you about their non-compliance after you had all ready committed to them. CourtesyCopy the FCC, which seems actually interested in regulating monopolistic corporations on the Internet.

Attach as much material support of your trials and tribulations as possible. The paper trail will provide these lawyers with the material support to begin the attack.

"I'll take my business elsewhere" Means Nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29639803)

Why...? The average American consumer does not comparison shop for price or quality or some other logical value - they shop for convenience.
 
That means that most businesses advertise and emphasize products for those buyers who have been educated by advertising, lifestyle, convention, popularity, and so on since the end of WW2 to be consumers. They know full well that while some dissatisfied buyers will complain, ask for rebates or refunds, etc., the more difficult it is to get satisfaction the more likely it is disgruntled buyers will opt for the convenience of not pursuing their complain and just go away. That's why they make it more convenient to just go away.
 
The businesses also know that with an increasing number of buyers, maintaining popularity by branding and constant advertising to make the product's name very familiar, and a cycle of planned obsolescence that promotes replacement by incompatibility, they will always have enough business to keep going and satisfy their investors who want a positive, increasing ROI.
 
The common response of "I'll take my business elsewhere" means nothing - unless it's a twittered cause or class action suit or patently illegal or there are bodily injuries that the news media can use to fuel its own promotional fires. There are too many average consumers - IT /. geek techies included - who do NOT shop around, read reviews, care about prices, actually know if what they're buying will do what they need or want it to do, or cannot make good logical reasoned timely decisions out here buying things for most businesses to care much about anything except selling the product.
 
And the bigger the company (think telco, think monopoly or near-monopoly, think what you want) the more emphasis there is on balancing income and expenses to turn a profit - which means that the expense of a certain number of problems with the product like warranty issues, replacements or repairs, or servicing customers has already been built into the price. If problems are fewer than planned for, profits are higher. And vice versa. Which is why businesses make it difficult for problems to cost them money (non-responsive customer service, denying claims, short or limited warranties, minimal product support, and so on and so on).
 
  keywords: planned obsolescence, minimal customer service, consumer mentality, the power of a group, investor mentality

Real service providers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29639813)

It'd be really cool if someone out there were to run a REAL service provider. You know, someone who provided a certain amount of access for a specific price, but otherwise didn't meddle with the traffic. No blocking of VOIP, no intereference with P2P, no other "service related" shenanigans. Just a stinking COMMON CARRIER with a neutral communications platform based on open standards. WTF?!

COMMON CARRIER for the ISPs out there, since they apparently have NFIWTF they are supposed to be doing, means that you don't muck with stuff that is none of your business. I don't care if you want to provide all kinds of additional services for the customers that want them. That's fine. Just leave the rest of your customers traffic alone and provide a baseline level of service. Sell users their 1MB, 100MB, or GB of bandwidth with a specific latency expectation, then back off.

Your meddling is the equivalent of a telecom introducing static to phone calls that continue longer than you would like, or blocking certain phone numbers from being called. It is uncalled for, it is stupid, and sooner or later you will pay the price. Good business is good for business, morons.

Go Get Stuffed Hippy (0, Troll)

brainchill (611679) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639847)

take your ipv6 and get stuffed hippy! .... you probably drive a prius too!!!! The widespread use of 1918 space has virtually eliminated any need for ipv6 on the public internet .... if you NEED ipv6 its either because you just got your ccna and you're trying to prove something or you just read network computing from 1900 and found out that it's the next big thing. ... it's adoption far outweighs that of elective colonoscopy but really who want's something shoved in their arse ;)

I've used dual-stack IPv6 with IPv4 NAT for 2 yrs! (5, Interesting)

cwolfsheep (685385) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639853)

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.

Basically Verizon is providing IPv6 (2, Informative)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#29639857)

The service they promise (sort of)... but they're being *******'es about it. If I understand correctly they provide article author two options (1) Use Verizon IP addresses, or (2) Use their ARIN assignment and peer with Verizon AS 701.

Where Verizon blocks announcements of prefixes longer than /32. This is a long-standing (braindead) policy on Verizon's part, that doesn't even account for the fact that RIRs are handing out /48 PI assignments in some cases, and there can be multi-homed sites with /56s.

In other words, a third of the V6 internet. You can think of this as the IPv4 equivallent of only accepting announcement of a /19 or larger block of IP addresses.

Specifically, they are completely blocking all of ARINâ(TM)s 2620:0::/23, so even by following their policies theyâ(TM)re still providing an incomplete view of the internet. It is their position that this is âoecorrect"

âoeIf you wish your /48 to be visible globally, youâ(TM)ll need to return your direct /48 allocation to ARIN and obtain a Verizon /48 from our network pool. Since our /48 assignment would be part of a /32 that we are announcing, your network would be globally routable. Otherwise, you are limited to AS701.â

Verizon isn't well known for having complete IPv6 connectivity, a lot of "IPv6 providers" don't. If you are serious about V6 connectivity, you definitely want to get multiple providers.

In the V6 world, connectivity is sparse, and filtering is overly aggressive from the likes of Verizon and other big V4 players, almost as if they're not really all that serious about ensuring global V6 reachability. I would say 2 or 3 transit providers is needed for bare minimum connectivity. And naturally it's better if you can peer with others...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>