Dying gasp? I agree with who would hear it, yes, a message that says "We detected power loss on your end, plug it back in". The problem is you're not the demographic of people calling in that this is targeting - it's the guy that wants to argue with me for 20 minutes that the unplugged ONT isn't why his Weefee isn't working and demands a tech show up immediately.
On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 2:24 PM Shane Ronan <[email protected]> wrote: > My experience has actually been that if I can likely determine the > cause BEFORE they speak to a representative and I can play a message > informing them "We have noticed your equipment may have lost power, please > check the power to your equipment before continuing", my customer > satisfaction actually goes up. > > I wouldn't suggest playing it for everyone, just those where you have seen > that last gap. > > Shane > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 2:04 PM Josh Luthman <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I may do that. I haven't gotten to the point where I want to. >> >> Imagine your parents or grandparents call in wanting to speak to an agent >> only to end up listening to a recording. That's frustrating for the end >> user. Like when you call any 800 number and it starts giving you options >> and wanting you to provide information to talk to the right department who >> of course answers only to transfer you to a different department. >> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2025, 1:53 PM Shane Ronan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Wouldn't it make sense to then play a message for those users before >>> they even connect to a representative to check the power to their equipment? >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 1:41 PM Josh Luthman via NANOG < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Because we would get things like "why is my IP address super long, I >>>> can't >>>> play Xbox now" or "my computer says it is IPv6 enabled, does that mean >>>> someone hacked me?" >>>> >>>> I manage the entire thing and let me give you an example of a ticket >>>> from >>>> this morning. The customer called in and said they unplugged some >>>> things >>>> and moved stuff around the house. Since then their internet/phone >>>> (landline) has not been working. CSR asked if device was plugged in to >>>> power. It was not. Customer plugged it in. >>>> >>>> You have to realize the people we're dealing with on this topic. We get >>>> the calls for anything internet related at all because people don't use >>>> their brain to connect the situation of unplugging the internet >>>> company's >>>> box from power and it not working. I wrote a script that takes all >>>> incoming calls and scans the customer's device to see if it has dying >>>> gasp >>>> and then posts to Slack. That post comes up for 20% of our calls - >>>> people >>>> without power or unplugging it. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 1:35 PM Tom Beecher <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> > I did. I'm looking at it from the perspective of managing tier 1 >>>> customer >>>> >> support issues through the tick box of enable IPv6 and managing their >>>> >> subnets. Implementation for me doesn't stop once it's enabled on the >>>> >> router. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Not picking on you specifically here, but it's generally funny to hear >>>> > "none of my users ask for V6" , then "my support will be run over >>>> with V6 >>>> > setup questions". :) >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 3:09 PM Josh Luthman < >>>> [email protected]> >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> >Read my entire message please. That statement was speaking to the >>>> >> implementation issues. >>>> >> >>>> >> I did. I'm looking at it from the perspective of managing tier 1 >>>> >> customer support issues through the tick box of enable IPv6 and >>>> managing >>>> >> their subnets. Implementation for me doesn't stop once it's enabled >>>> on the >>>> >> router. >>>> >> >>>> >> On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 2:48 PM Tom Beecher <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >>> That's absolutely not true. Tier 1 support will have to deal with >>>> v6 >>>> >>>> issues. Customers will have additional issues due to IPv6. >>>> Absolutely >>>> >>>> more than a v4 only network (today, not speaking for the future). >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Read my entire message please. That statement was speaking to the >>>> >>> implementation issues. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I addressed (separately) the support aspects. Are there cases where >>>> v6 >>>> >>> specifically causes customer issues? Yes. Are those cases >>>> exceedingly rare >>>> >>> these days? Yes. While things happen, the vast majority of user >>>> facing >>>> >>> stuff these days follows Happy Eyeballs pretty good, and Just Works >>>> when >>>> >>> you have both 4 and 6 available. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 2:28 PM Josh Luthman via NANOG < >>>> >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >Yes there can be some things to shake out to implement it, but >>>> once >>>> >>>> those >>>> >>>> are done, they're done. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> That's absolutely not true. Tier 1 support will have to deal with >>>> v6 >>>> >>>> issues. Customers will have additional issues due to IPv6. >>>> Absolutely >>>> >>>> more than a v4 only network (today, not speaking for the future). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >What are your end users talking to that is IPv4-only these days, >>>> >>>> because >>>> >>>> it’s not much pretty much all the e-mail/cloud/office/docs things >>>> are >>>> >>>> IPv6 >>>> >>>> these days, and yeah it’s harder to remember 2620:fe::fe than >>>> 9.9.9.9 >>>> >>>> but >>>> >>>> who besides a few of us still have phone numbers memorized either >>>> these >>>> >>>> days? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Little websites named after a forest and an auction website for >>>> old junk >>>> >>>> (Amazon and Ebay). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 2:23 PM Jared Mauch via NANOG < >>>> >>>> [email protected]> >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > > On Dec 1, 2025, at 2:06 PM, Tom Beecher via NANOG < >>>> >>>> [email protected]> >>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> > >> >>>> >>>> > >>> this thread has done nothing except rehash the same >>>> viewpoints >>>> >>>> that get >>>> >>>> > >> discussed ad nauseam for the last however many years. >>>> >>>> > >> >>>> >>>> > >> I'm not sure if you just don't see it or you're being funny. >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> > > It's a correct statement. >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> > > "IPv6 doesn't work" : Google's stats show that just shy of 50% >>>> of >>>> >>>> all >>>> >>>> > their >>>> >>>> > > traffic is native V6. Most of the largest CDNs will give you >>>> similar >>>> >>>> > > answers. Yes there can be some things to shake out to >>>> implement it, >>>> >>>> but >>>> >>>> > > once those are done, they're done. >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> > > "My customers don't ask for it." : Customers don't ask for >>>> IPv4. >>>> >>>> They >>>> >>>> > don't >>>> >>>> > > ask for NAT/CGNAT either. But you do those things I'm sure, >>>> because >>>> >>>> as >>>> >>>> > you >>>> >>>> > > said, they just want things to work. >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> > > The answer is really money. You made a business decision not to >>>> >>>> incur the >>>> >>>> > > hardware/software/support costs to implement V6 for your >>>> customers. >>>> >>>> > That's >>>> >>>> > > fine, no shame in that. Maybe that will never be a problem for >>>> you, >>>> >>>> > maybe >>>> >>>> > > someday it will and it will cost you. Who knows. >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> > > But just be honest and call it what it is, instead of half >>>> baked >>>> >>>> > statements >>>> >>>> > > that have been repeated for decades. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > Exactly. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > Talking to friends at companies that do social networking stuff >>>> pretty >>>> >>>> > much all their traffic (over 90%) is from mobile devices, and >>>> when I >>>> >>>> look >>>> >>>> > at the big 3 mobile networks in the US they all do IPv6. Their >>>> MVNO’s >>>> >>>> > might vary, but the main networks do IPv6. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > I find myself having to tether off their networks when I’m on >>>> IPv4 >>>> >>>> only >>>> >>>> > networks to access things like my hypervisors and other assets >>>> that >>>> >>>> are >>>> >>>> > IPv6-only because they have superior networking these days. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > If you are doing IPv4-only, you are only harming yourself >>>> long-term. >>>> >>>> The >>>> >>>> > solutions are there for all the things you think you will >>>> encounter. >>>> >>>> For >>>> >>>> > the most part it’s 96 more bits, no magic. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > Yes there are a few nuances to be aware of, like proxy-arp saves >>>> a >>>> >>>> lot of >>>> >>>> > people when they do kinky things in IPv4 and proxy-NDP is there, >>>> but >>>> >>>> not in >>>> >>>> > the same way on many platforms. One of the last big hurdles out >>>> >>>> there was >>>> >>>> > IPv6 support for VTEP in FRR in my mind and that gap was recently >>>> >>>> closed. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > I also happen to think that Apple got it wrong when they rolled >>>> >>>> private >>>> >>>> > relay out, they kept the inbound tunnel protocol to outbound >>>> proxy >>>> >>>> behavior >>>> >>>> > on the same address family when they could have upgraded it on >>>> the >>>> >>>> outbound >>>> >>>> > side to IPv6 which would have closed the gap even more. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > What are your end users talking to that is IPv4-only these days, >>>> >>>> because >>>> >>>> > it’s not much pretty much all the e-mail/cloud/office/docs >>>> things are >>>> >>>> IPv6 >>>> >>>> > these days, and yeah it’s harder to remember 2620:fe::fe than >>>> 9.9.9.9 >>>> >>>> but >>>> >>>> > who besides a few of us still have phone numbers memorized either >>>> >>>> these >>>> >>>> > days? >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > Do you need a ton of IPv4 space? Not really, but if you’re a >>>> cable >>>> >>>> > company like RCN, yeah you’re not doing any upgrades, but if you >>>> are >>>> >>>> > leaving assets on IPv4 just because you are leaving them on IPv4, >>>> >>>> then at >>>> >>>> > some point you are just wasting money. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > Send it to me and Tom so we can buy more hockey tickets. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > - Jared >>>> >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>> > NANOG mailing list >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/NMBYWMNZ7ROM6WMGFJ7IAYLKPFQG3BUO/ >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>> NANOG mailing list >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/5M7ANDNUNQRIODBM5B6IGSH3P4XPSBYJ/ >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NANOG mailing list >>>> >>>> https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/JW5R7VO75I5RN4B4H2F4GF7NBMXRHH7E/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/UG5JHGTMDWOCXWPFRNSVZXQTNTTMNGAU/
