Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Networking The Internet

Verizon Refuses To Provide Complete IPv6 438

Posted by kdawson
from the no-routing-around-it dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Verizon Refuses To Provide Complete IPv6

Comments Filter:
  • bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shentino (1139071) on Sunday October 04, 2009 @08:13PM (#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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Sponge Bath (413667)

      ...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 (Score:5, Informative)

        by nacturation (646836) * <nacturation@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Sunday October 04, 2009 @08:39PM (#29639521) Journal

        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 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ZekoMal (1404259) on Sunday October 04, 2009 @08:42PM (#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: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Sponge Bath (413667)

          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 (Score:5, Informative)

            by paul248 (536459) on Sunday October 04, 2009 @08:56PM (#29639619) Homepage

            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 (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Sponge Bath (413667) on Sunday October 04, 2009 @09:22PM (#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 (Score:5, Interesting)

          by c0d3g33k (102699) on Sunday October 04, 2009 @09:17PM (#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 (Score:5, Insightful)

            by rantingkitten (938138) <[kitten] [at] [mirrorshades.org]> on Monday October 05, 2009 @12:34AM (#29640839) Homepage
            I think part of the problem is that for every legitimate complaint someone might have against a company, there are about fifty clueless dolts making completely asinine and totally unjustified complaints about the same company. Making a public scene about a company's atrocities is a great idea but in general, looking at complaints about a company just nets the loons, the disturbed, and the just plain goofy. It's not always easy to make a real complaint heard in the sea of idiocy.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by natehoy (1608657)

            I had a similar experience when canceling service with a web hosting provider (lowestcosthost.com). They started out OK. and I finally decided to prepay for a year to get a slight discount. A few weeks later, their service rapidly became abysmal, to the point where email would go down for hours, then instead of dealing with the issue they'd just reboot the email server and clear the email buffers on the way back up (losing any email that was in queue). This happened three times in the same month, and I f

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

          Let's see. You pick up your marbles from the big bad company, and nobody else leaves with you. So... your answer is to try and impose your will on everyone else. Maybe all those other people simply didn't care about the same issue as you. Like, maybe your opinion doesn't matter.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by stephanruby (542433)

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

          Not me. I'm taking the more passive approach. I'm currently stockpiling static ip addresses. I've got three so far. If all the people of Dubai are surviving on one static ip address alone, I figure I should be able to easily survive on three.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by shentino (1139071)

        How can you vote with your dollars if they've been swallowed by the company that already cheated you?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rastilin (752802)

        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.

        Maybe, but the fact is they had a contract and they broke it. The best thing for someone to do is to sue them, which has the additional benefit of changing their long-term policy and drawing attention to their failings.Lawsuits aren't hard and you can find lawyers to take these kinds of cases for free.

    • Re:bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NoYob (1630681) on Sunday October 04, 2009 @08:21PM (#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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by elashish14 (1302231)

      Exactly.

      In particular because a lot of the money that they use to put up the lines (for their business) comes from public tax dollars. And also because they have a near monopoly in many areas. The courts have already decided that cable companies don't have to share their lines (I assume that this translates to Verizon too if they're not exactly specified by the ruling) so they have a public obligation to provide full services if it's on the public's tab.

      It's okay that we live in a country where our governme

    • Re:bullshit (Score:5, Funny)

      by ShakaUVM (157947) on Monday October 05, 2009 @02:48AM (#29641401) Homepage Journal

      >>They'd damn well better give you a full refund if that v6 was an essential part of the contract.

      From my Terms of Service with Verizon, defining a 'bit': "A unit of information that respresent a single character."

      Sigh... both a Tech and Grammar Fail.

      I wonder if I can sue them for breach of service if they can't come up with a coding scheme that can pack ASCII into a single bit.

  • by sakdoctor (1087155) on Sunday October 04, 2009 @08:17PM (#29639351) Homepage

    From the EVIL 29% of the internet.

  • Order Accepted? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WiiVault (1039946) on Sunday October 04, 2009 @08:21PM (#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; 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.

  • 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

  • ipv6 access to rollernet.us seems to be down.

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

  • 29% (Score:3, Funny)

    by Scutter (18425) on Sunday October 04, 2009 @08:27PM (#29639423) Journal

    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... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Totenglocke (1291680) on Sunday October 04, 2009 @08:28PM (#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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by im_thatoneguy (819432)

      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.

  • I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DaMattster (977781) on Sunday October 04, 2009 @08:34PM (#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.
  • 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.

  • by chrylis (262281) on Sunday October 04, 2009 @08:50PM (#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.

    • by Glendale2x (210533) <slashdotNO@SPAMninjamonkey.us> on Sunday October 04, 2009 @09:02PM (#29639661) Homepage

      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.

  • by h00manist (800926) on Sunday October 04, 2009 @08:58PM (#29639631) Journal
    therefore, ipv6 is bad for Verizon?
  • change of contract (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Eil (82413) on Sunday October 04, 2009 @09:01PM (#29639649) Homepage Journal

    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. :)

    • by Glendale2x (210533) <slashdotNO@SPAMninjamonkey.us> on Sunday October 04, 2009 @09:30PM (#29639837) Homepage

      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.

  • by Junta (36770) on Sunday October 04, 2009 @09:01PM (#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.

  • by cwolfsheep (685385) on Sunday October 04, 2009 @09:33PM (#29639853) Homepage
    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.
  • And I'd like a pony (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Antique Geekmeister (740220) on Sunday October 04, 2009 @09:54PM (#29639973)

    I'm afraid that while IPv6 has many features, the upstream roll-out is hindered by necessary hardware and configuration upgrades, and interoperability with IPv4 for at least another decade. And frankly, with the effective use of NAT and staggered layers of NAT around the world, the overwhelming need of IPv6 has also evaporated for another decade.

    Can you show me a single feature of IPv6 that Verizon's customers actually need? One that isn't also manageable with NAT and reasonably intelligent load balancers?

  • by slack_justyb (862874) on Sunday October 04, 2009 @10:45PM (#29640231)
    I know it is a bummer but ARIN should not have issued PI addresses. Verizon is simply taking a stand on this issue. It's like blaming AT&T for not having DNS entries from OpenDNS. It's not AT&T's job to continuously keep up to snuff on every Tom, Dick, and Harry who puts up a DNS server or make's an independent entry. Likewise, it's not Verizon's job to get BGP information from independent routes. Yeah' it sucks big time and Verizon should be shunned for it, but really do you blame them? 2620:0/23 is a black hole on a lot of ISP's, why is Verizon special?
    • I know it is a bummer but ARIN should not have issued PI addresses.

      Don't forget that RIPE allows PI /48's too, so we aren't talking about just the ARIN region.

The end of labor is to gain leisure.

Working...