You're not alone.
I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and they said "We will
probably start looking into IPv6 next year".
I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah, everyone seems to be
offering it. I guess I'll have to start reading how to implement it".
I'm sure 2045 will
Things are no better in Spectrum land; gotta love the innovation in monopoly
markets…. I ask every year and expect it in perhaps thirty.
From: NANOG on behalf of "Aaron C. de Bruyn via
NANOG"
Reply-To: "Aaron C. de Bruyn"
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 4:26 PM
To: "C. A. Fillekes"
Cc: NANO
FWIW, I have had IPv6 for many years on my Spectrum (formerly Time Warner)
connection at home. I think it was ~2012 or so. On our company fiber
connection, it has been since ~2010, maybe a little earlier. Granted it took a
little pressure and I’m sure were were the first IPv6 business customer i
On 3/31/19 13:31, David Hubbard wrote:
Things are no better in Spectrum land; gotta love the innovation in
monopoly markets…. I ask every year and expect it in perhaps thirty.
It depends if you're Charter or Time Warner. Charter does.
Still it's pretty darn good having real broadband on the farm. One thing
at a time.
But, let's start thinking about ways to get Frontier up to speed on the
IPv6 thing.
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:24 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn
wrote:
> You're not alone.
>
> I talked with my local provider about 4 year
Going to play devils advocate.
If frontier has a ton of ipv4 addresses, what benefit is there to them in
rolling out ipv6?
What benefit is there to you?
> On Mar 31, 2019, at 7:11 PM, C. A. Fillekes wrote:
>
>
> Still it's pretty darn good having real broadband on the farm. One thing at
>
You mean like pulse dialing and stepper relays vs touch tone dialing?
I'm sure there were people that felt the same about that too.
That mindset is simply you already paid for the old stuff, it's working
fine, you would rather not understand or think about the problems the
new tech solves or bene
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:20 PM Matt Hoppes <
mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
> Going to play devils advocate.
>
> If frontier has a ton of ipv4 addresses, what benefit is there to them in
> rolling out ipv6?
>
> What benefit is there to you?
>
I love xbox and xbox works better on ipv6,
Telcos had an advantage, they were able to put the cost of that new fancy
switch into our cost study / rate base.
So they were rewarded for spending money, and boy did they spend money.
Luke
Ns
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 31, 2019, at 7:20 PM, Mike Leber mailto:mle...@he.net>>
wrote:
You
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 4:37 AM Matthew Petach wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 4:33 AM Matthew Petach wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 12:40 PM David Hubbard
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey all, I’ve been having bad luck searching around, but did IPv6 transit
>>> between HE and google e
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 6:07 PM Christopher Morrow
wrote:
>
> thread subject still says 'google and he', I don't think there's ever
> been problems between google/he for v6.
> I think there are some issues from cogent - > he over v6 :(
>
> Looking at a sample AS6939 customer link I see no:
> ".*
The routes you see are Cogent using IPv6 leaks.
We chase these down as we see them.
Obviously if Cogent is happy enough to use leaks, we could just give
them our IPv6 customer routes directly. ;)
As a backbone operator, I'd prefer all routing we do (for at least the
first hop leaving our networ
On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 18:10:09 -0700, Christopher Morrow said:
> Apologies, I do actually see a path from 174 -> 6939 (well 28 paths):
> 174 6939
>
> it's clearly not all of HE -> Cogent, and it's clearly not supposed to
> be working (I would think).
Wait, what?
Are you saying that they refuse
It is not possible for web pages to load faster over IPv6 than over IPv4. All
other factors being equal, IPv6 has higher overhead than IPv4 for the same
payload throughput. This means that it is physically impossible for IPv6 to be
move payload bytes "faster" than IPv4 can move the same payl
On 3/31/19 8:21 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 18:10:09 -0700, Christopher Morrow said:
Apologies, I do actually see a path from 174 -> 6939 (well 28 paths):
174 6939
it's clearly not all of HE -> Cogent, and it's clearly not supposed to
be working (I would think).
Wa
On 3/31/19 6:19 PM, Mike Leber wrote:
The routes you see are Cogent using IPv6 leaks.
We chase these down as we see them.
Obviously if Cogent is happy enough to use leaks, we could just give
them our IPv6 customer routes directly. ;)
As a backbone operator, I'd prefer all routing we do (for a
You are assuming the routing and transit relationships in IPv4 are the
same in IPv6.
IPv4 has many many many suboptimal transit relationships where routing
is purposely suboptimal on the part of the networks in the path due to
competitive reasons. One example of suboptimal routing is traffic not
> Are you saying that they refused to peer - and then failed at refusing? :)
luckily, none of the rest of us have bugs. whew!
Furthermore, NAT, prevalent with IPv4, adds latency. There is none with
IPv6 (unless you're doing it wrong.)
On 3/31/19 8:42 PM, Mike Leber wrote:
You are assuming the routing and transit relationships in IPv4 are the
same in IPv6.
IPv4 has many many many suboptimal transit relationships wher
The telephone example:
What IS the benefit of DTMF other than I can dial faster? None. And I can use
IVRs. Again - no impact to me as a telephone company.
As far as ipv6. It’s been proven things “load faster” because the ipv6 servers
of the various websites are not as heavily loaded as the ipv
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 6:40 PM Jay Hennigan wrote:
> Perhaps you should bake them a cake. :-)
>
The cake was delicious and moist
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mpetach/4031434206
"I'd like to buy a vowel. Can I get an 'e', pleas?" ^_^;;
My mom was cheap and only had pulse dialing in the 90s, it made using pagers
difficult. Had to flip to tone after it dialed.
Ns
Sent from my iPad
>
On Mar 31, 2019, at 8:53 PM, Matt Hoppes
wrote:
>
> The telephone example:
> What IS the benefit of DTMF other than I can dial faster? None
I’m in Spectrum land, née Time Warner, née Rigas Cash Extraction Machine...
errr Adelphia. ( Buffalo / WNY )
We’ve had native v6 for quite a few years up here.
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 16:55 Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 3/31/19 13:31, David Hubbard wrote:
> > Things are no better in Spectrum land;
I remember tapping the switch-hook to emulate pulse-dialing on
touch-tone phones.
Few were impressed.
On 3/31/19 9:01 PM, Luke Guillory wrote:
My mom was cheap and only had pulse dialing in the 90s, it made using pagers
difficult. Had to flip to tone after it dialed.
Ns
Sent from my iPad
On 3/31/19 10:05 PM, Tom Beecher wrote:
I’m in Spectrum land, née Time Warner, née Rigas Cash Extraction
Machine... errr Adelphia. ( Buffalo / WNY )
We’ve had native v6 for quite a few years up here.
Spectrum ex. Bright House/Time Warner varies by region. NY region has
had it, apparently.
Send them another cake…
Owen
> On Mar 31, 2019, at 18:19 , Mike Leber wrote:
>
> The routes you see are Cogent using IPv6 leaks.
>
> We chase these down as we see them.
>
> Obviously if Cogent is happy enough to use leaks, we could just give
> them our IPv6 customer routes directly. ;)
>
>
26 matches
Mail list logo
