On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 11:14:13AM -0400, David Hill wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 06:55:59AM -0700, Stephen Satchell wrote:
> > Would someone at Charter Communications who is on this list indicate the
> > roll-out schedule for IPv6 to business customers using cable modems as
> > opposed to fi
So I woke up this morning to discover my business FIOS had croaked about
3:30 AM :(. Everything looked good on the ONT, but couldn't ping the
gateway. Poked at it from the other side, and it looked like traceroute
died a hop or so short of what I remember, so seemed to be a layer 3
issue on their s
On Tue, Jan 03, 2017 at 06:56:13PM -0800, Paul B. Henson wrote:
> Hopefully it won't be three days this time.
Well, my FIOS mysteriously came back online about 9:45pm, a bit over 18
hours after it mysteriously dropped offline. I happened to be in the
wiring closet staring angrily at
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 04:01:03AM +, Mel Beckman wrote:
> If a Frontier tech is on this list, I ask you kindly figure out what
> the blasted deal is with your vanishing ticket numbers. This has been
> going on for MONTHS!
The cynic in me wonders if somebody is trying to artificially inflate
> From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 6:49 AM
>
> Even if nothing else happens, calling in and reporting the problem *does*
> (or at least it *should*) set the clock running for any SLA-related
> compensation.
I'm pretty sure FIOS doesn't have any contractual SLA's.
> From: Christopher Morrow
> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 8:42 AM
>
> and think about it, you could get ipv6 on your network... the OP still
> doesn't have that native on his fios I bet.
Yeah, sure, pour salt on my still open wound ;).
> From: Matthew Black
> Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2017 9:41 AM
>
> I'm a Frontier FiOS customer in SoCal and have had trouble loading the
> Google home page for weeks. Had trouble loading Gmail last night.
When it's up, I rarely have connectivity issues. Of course, I have business
class fios a
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 01:57:10PM -0800, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> Have been evaluating going to more consumerish-grade circuits like this
> at remote locations, but this scenario is one that has kept me sticking
> with the more traditional (and more expensive) SLA-bound circuits.
I'd call my busi
On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 05:16:43PM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> maybe now would be a good time to ask your vz rep about this 'feature'?
Hah. I asked Frontier right after the cutover and got the same Verizon smoke
"Currently in the planning stages with no firm timeline for deployment."
I was wondering if anybody has been contacted yet about cutting over
their static IP addresses for Frontier business FIOS? Last year my
understanding was that they were lent Verizon IP space for one year and
everyone needed to be cutover by 4/2017; here it is 5/2017 and I've
still heard nothing of
So yesterday I started seeing some arp warnings in my server logs:
Aug 23 16:09:29 lisa /bsd: arp info overwritten for 96.251.22.154 by
f0:1c:2d:8d:0e:cf on em2
Aug 23 16:12:24 lisa /bsd: arp info overwritten for 96.251.22.154 by
f0:1c:2d:8d:0e:cf on em2
Aug 23 16:21:28 lisa /bsd: arp info overwri
So the transition from Verizon to Frontier is coming up, and I recently got
a notice from Verizon pointing me to the following website:
http://meetfrontier.com/
Evidently one of the things Verizon did not sell to Frontier is their IP
address space, as it seems customers with static IP addresses a
We're in the beginning steps of bringing up IPv6 at the fairly large
university where I work. We plan to use DHCPv6 rather than SLAAC for a
variety of reasons. One of our guys recently noticed that Android has no
support for DHCPv6, and a rather odd issue thread discussing it:
https://code.google.
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 07:30:48AM +0100, Alan Buxey wrote:
> Care to elaborate on the reasons?
Heh, there's a reason I said "variety" ;). Honestly, I'm like 90% systems
and 10% network, our network guys could probably better explain all of
the underlying thought process. My primary task on the d
> From: Lorenzo Colitti
> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 7:49 PM
>
> That sounds pretty stupid even for me, so probably something got lost in
> translation.
"Implementing stateful DHCPv6 would break planned use cases such as IPv6
tethering"
"And it's not possible to enable tethering"
"tethering
> From: Lorenzo Colitti
> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 11:33 PM
>
> value of N. I'd be happy to work with people on an Internet draft or other
[...]
> It's also possible for Android to support DHCPv6 PD. Again I'd be happy to
> work with people on a document that says that mobile devices should do
> From: Mikael Abrahamsson
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:05 AM
>
> You seem to fail to realise that you are not Lorenzos customer, his
> customer is the OEMs that build mobile phones, and their customers who buy
> Android phones.
And he fails to realize that the people who buy android phone
> From: Ray Soucy
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:36 AM
>
> In practice, your device will just not be supported.
[..]
> If your client is broken because of an incomplete implementation, I just
> won't give it an IPv6 address at all. I think a lot of others feel the
> same way.
[...]
> already
> From: Lorenzo Colitti
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 5:07 AM
>
> getting rid of NAT. Today in IPv4, tethering just works, period.
[...]
> IPv4-only apps always work.
Wow. If your phone just "always works", you certainly lead a charmed life.
> A model where the device has to request resources
> From: Lorenzo Colitti
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 5:22 AM
>
> It's certainly a possibility for both sides in this debate to say "my way
> or the highway", and wait and see what happens when operators start
> removing support for IPv4.
You are rather confused.
Only one side of this debate
> From: Ray Soucy
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 6:06 AM
>
> As for thinking "long term" and "the future", we need devices to work
> within current models of IPv6 to accelerate _adoption_ of IPv6 _today_
> before we can get to that future you're talking about.
>
> Not supporting DHCPv6 ultimatel
> From: Lorenzo Colitti
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 8:27 AM
>
> please do not construe my words on this thread as being Google's position
> on anything. These messages were sent from my personal email address, and I
> do not speak for my employer.
Can we construe your postings on the issue t
> From: Laszlo Hanyecz
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 4:42 PM
>
> from the university net Nazis
Wow, it must be nice to live in a fairyland utopia where there is no DMCA,
no federal laws such as HEOA, and a wide variety of other things you clearly
know nothing about that require universities to b
I think it's been about a year and a half since I last looked (and
cried) at the status of FIOS IPv6. As far as I can tell, there's been no
new official news since 2013. We're deploying IPv6 at the university I
work at, so IPv6 at home is moving from "wish I had it to play with"
towards "need to ha
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 02:32:33PM -0700, Ca By wrote:
> Yes, move your business to TWC. TWC has a proven v6 deployment and is
> actively engaged in the community, as where vz Fios is not.
>
> Business only understand $
Yah, cheap bastards :). I've got 50/50 fios right now; TWC can match the
do
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 05:35:35PM -0400, John Peach wrote:
> and I wouldn't hold my breath over IPv6; I have to run stunnel so I
> can send email from home because they don't even use TLS. Having
Hmm, I just recently set up my mail client to use Verizon's smtp
servers, and TLS seemed to work
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 01:31:54AM +, Mel Beckman wrote:
> Just set up the tunnel. It works beautifully.
Yeah, I probably will. Shouldn't expose my bluff, but I probably won't
switch to business cable, I actually use my upstream 8-/. But I needed
to get in one last rant before I went that wa
> From: John Peach
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 5:02 AM
>
> smtps was deprecated years ago and is not implemented in postfix, hence
> the need for stunnel. I should have said they don't implement STARTTLS
> on either 25 or 587.
Oh, ok; I assumed you were talking about a client, not an MTA. Why a
So I was curious, has anyone managed to penetrate the black hole that
appears to be surrounding any actual details on Verizon FIOS IPv6
deployment? Their last official announcement indicated they would start
deploying it in 2012, and clearly that didn't happen. I've been asking on
and off for a cou
> From: Justin M. Streiner [mailto:strei...@cluebyfour.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 6:02 PM
>
> If you find the answer, you win the prize.
Can the prize be the Verizon employees that should have been keeping us in
the loop on this in a dunk tank ;)?
> I've tried shaking numerous trees (
> From: Adam Rothschild [mailto:a...@latency.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 8:10 PM
>
> Sorry, yes, that is correct: one way to get IPv6 FIOS at the home is
> to escalate through your (701/VZB) account team.
Hmm, I actually have business FIOS at home (static IP highway robbery
), and have
> From: Ian Bowers [mailto:iggd...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 5:31 AM
>
> indication that native IPv6 is starting up, but never hears anything. So
I
> rock HE like many of you. It works pretty well, and I'm, guessing I get a
> lot more address space via HE than VZ would give m
32 matches
Mail list logo
