SMC D3G CCR IPv6 support for Comcast BCI customers
Folks, I meant to send this sooner, hopefully better late than never. We found a bug in the SMC D3G CCR that was specific to IPv6. We tried for many months (practically years to get it fixed properly) with no success. As such we have to roll back IPv6 support for the same. See the link below: http://forums.businesshelp.comcast.com/t5/IPV6/IPv6-Firmware-Rollback-on-SMCD3GCCR/m-p/31280#U31280 If you have an SMC D3G CCR and require IPv6 support please send me unicast email at work (this address). Use the forum messenger or contact me directly regarding a device swap for a model that continues to supports IPv6. Feel free to ask questions on list that you feel others will benefit from, I will answer them. Otherwise please use the forum link above. John +1-484-962-0060
RE: Need Comcast IPv6 routing assistance please
Regarding the thread: http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2016-May/085878.html David, I looked around CA and it looks like some customers are provisioned with two delegated IPv6 prefixes. We had an issue a week or so back that we believe was corrected. If you wish contact me off list. Before we look to see if there are larger routing issue we should make sure you have one and only one active delegated IPv6 prefix. From my end it looks like you may have two. Thanks, John +1-484-962-0060
Re: Comcast Support (from NANOG Digest, Vol 84, Issue 24)
From the looks of it, there is no IPv6 PD support per RFC3633. = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable p) 484-962-0060 w) www.comcast6.net e) john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com = -Original Message- From: Rafael de Oliveira Ribeiro rafael.ribe...@rnp.br Organization: Rede Nacional de ensino e Pesquisa Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 at 11:00 To: John Brzozowski john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com, NANOG nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Comcast Support (from NANOG Digest, Vol 84, Issue 24) Dear John, On 24/01/2015 10:00, nanog-requ...@nanog.org wrote: (...) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 17:14:11 + From: Brzozowski, John john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com To: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org Subject: Comcast Support (from NANOG Digest, Vol 84, Issue 23) Message-ID: d0e7e8e3.21d5aa%john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 (...) For customers where you bring your own cable modem or have one of the above in bridge mode we have enabled IPv6 support for you as well. However, your router behind the modem must be running software and configured with IPv6 support. Specifically, your router needs to be support stateful DHCPv6 for IPv6 address and prefix acquisition. We have received a number of reports from customers that the Juniper SRX does not appear to properly support IPv6. We are working with Juniper and also recommend that you reach out to Juniper as well. (...) Care to share scenarios where the SRXs do not perform well with DHCPv6? Any specific model? Thanks in advance, -- Rafael de Oliveira Ribeiro DAERO - Gerencia de Operacoes RNP - Rede Nacional de Ensino e Pesquisa Tel.: +55 21 2102 9659 - iNOC: 1916*767
Re: Comcast Support (from NANOG Digest, Vol 84, Issue 24)
Sorry Ron, just replied with the same information. = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable p) 484-962-0060 w) www.comcast6.net e) john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com = -Original Message- From: Ron Broersma r...@dren.mil Date: Monday, January 26, 2015 at 13:15 To: Rafael de Oliveira Ribeiro rafael.ribe...@rnp.br Cc: John Brzozowski john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com, NANOG nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Comcast Support (from NANOG Digest, Vol 84, Issue 24) On Jan 26, 2015, at 8:00 AM, Rafael de Oliveira Ribeiro rafael.ribe...@rnp.br wrote: Care to share scenarios where the SRXs do not perform well with DHCPv6? Any specific model? As one example, there is no support for DHCPv6-relay in the SRX, so we never use them for edge routers (in our enterprise networks). —Ron
Re: Comcast Support (from NANOG Digest, Vol 84, Issue 23)
Correct link for Cisco is updated below. John From: Brzozowski, John Brzozowski john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.commailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 12:14 To: NANOG nanog@nanog.orgmailto:nanog@nanog.org Subject: Comcast Support (from NANOG Digest, Vol 84, Issue 23) Folks, The thread below was sent to me a few times, apologies for not catching it sooner. Janet, I sent you mail unicast with a request for some information. I am happy to help you out. For the larger NANOG audience, Comcast has recently launched IPv6 support for our BCI products, these are our DOCSIS based commercial offerings. This means that if you gateway device is in fact in RG mode you will be delegated a dynamic IPv6 prefix, by default customers are delegated a /56 prefix along with a single IPv6 address that is assigned to the WAN of the gateway device. IPv6 support applies to the following makes and models: SMC D3G CCR (http://mydeviceinfo.comcast.net/device.php?devid=216) Netgear CG3000D (http://mydeviceinfo.comcast.net/device.php?devid=347) Cisco BWG (http://mydeviceinfo.comcast.net/device.php?devid=407http://mydeviceinfo.comcast.net/device.php?devid=347) For customers where you bring your own cable modem or have one of the above in bridge mode we have enabled IPv6 support for you as well. However, your router behind the modem must be running software and configured with IPv6 support. Specifically, your router needs to be support stateful DHCPv6 for IPv6 address and prefix acquisition. We have received a number of reports from customers that the Juniper SRX does not appear to properly support IPv6. We are working with Juniper and also recommend that you reach out to Juniper as well. Please keep checking http://www.comcast6.net for updates, we will post some additional information here in the next week or so. In the mean time if you have questions feel free to send me mail or post them here on the NANOG list. HTH, John = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable p) 484-962-0060 w) www.comcast6.net e) john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.commailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com = -Original Message- From: nanog-requ...@nanog.orgmailto:nanog-requ...@nanog.org nanog-requ...@nanog.orgmailto:nanog-requ...@nanog.org Reply-To: NANOG nanog@nanog.orgmailto:nanog@nanog.org Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 07:00 To: NANOG nanog@nanog.orgmailto:nanog@nanog.org Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 84, Issue 23 Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 22:42:17 + From: Janet Sullivan jan...@nairial.netmailto:jan...@nairial.net To: 'nanog@nanog.orgmailto:'nanog@nanog.org' nanog@nanog.orgmailto:nanog@nanog.org Subject: Comcast Support Message-ID: cy1pr0701mb1164f3448b35404bbae671a8dc...@cy1pr0701mb1164.namprd07.prod.outlook.commailto:cy1pr0701mb1164f3448b35404bbae671a8dc...@cy1pr0701mb1164.namprd07.prod.outlook.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I hate to use NANOG for this, but support has now ended a chat with me twice without fixing anything, they just kicked me off. I'm not getting an IPv6 address on the Comcast provided cable modem/router. I'm not getting a PD. My machines thus have no IPv6. I've hard reset my router 4 times while working with Comcast, and I've been told to do things like switch to a static IPv4 address, which shows a level of clue that is scary. And before that they were convinced it was a wireless problem even though I have a wired connection, and told them that multiple times. I've wasted two hours with Comcast today, and even when I asked for escalation I got nothing. Just hung up on. It's honestly the worst customer support I've ever received. I don't think I ever got them to understand the difference between IPv4 and IPv6.
Comcast Support (from NANOG Digest, Vol 84, Issue 23)
Folks, The thread below was sent to me a few times, apologies for not catching it sooner. Janet, I sent you mail unicast with a request for some information. I am happy to help you out. For the larger NANOG audience, Comcast has recently launched IPv6 support for our BCI products, these are our DOCSIS based commercial offerings. This means that if you gateway device is in fact in RG mode you will be delegated a dynamic IPv6 prefix, by default customers are delegated a /56 prefix along with a single IPv6 address that is assigned to the WAN of the gateway device. IPv6 support applies to the following makes and models: SMC D3G CCR (http://mydeviceinfo.comcast.net/device.php?devid=216) Cisco BWG (http://mydeviceinfo.comcast.net/device.php?devid=347) Netgear CG3000D (http://mydeviceinfo.comcast.net/device.php?devid=347) For customers where you bring your own cable modem or have one of the above in bridge mode we have enabled IPv6 support for you as well. However, your router behind the modem must be running software and configured with IPv6 support. Specifically, your router needs to be support stateful DHCPv6 for IPv6 address and prefix acquisition. We have received a number of reports from customers that the Juniper SRX does not appear to properly support IPv6. We are working with Juniper and also recommend that you reach out to Juniper as well. Please keep checking http://www.comcast6.net for updates, we will post some additional information here in the next week or so. In the mean time if you have questions feel free to send me mail or post them here on the NANOG list. HTH, John = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable p) 484-962-0060 w) www.comcast6.net e) john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com = -Original Message- From: nanog-requ...@nanog.orgmailto:nanog-requ...@nanog.org nanog-requ...@nanog.orgmailto:nanog-requ...@nanog.org Reply-To: NANOG nanog@nanog.orgmailto:nanog@nanog.org Date: Friday, January 23, 2015 at 07:00 To: NANOG nanog@nanog.orgmailto:nanog@nanog.org Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 84, Issue 23 Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 22:42:17 + From: Janet Sullivan jan...@nairial.netmailto:jan...@nairial.net To: 'nanog@nanog.orgmailto:'nanog@nanog.org' nanog@nanog.orgmailto:nanog@nanog.org Subject: Comcast Support Message-ID: cy1pr0701mb1164f3448b35404bbae671a8dc...@cy1pr0701mb1164.namprd07.prod.outlook.commailto:cy1pr0701mb1164f3448b35404bbae671a8dc...@cy1pr0701mb1164.namprd07.prod.outlook.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii I hate to use NANOG for this, but support has now ended a chat with me twice without fixing anything, they just kicked me off. I'm not getting an IPv6 address on the Comcast provided cable modem/router. I'm not getting a PD. My machines thus have no IPv6. I've hard reset my router 4 times while working with Comcast, and I've been told to do things like switch to a static IPv4 address, which shows a level of clue that is scary. And before that they were convinced it was a wireless problem even though I have a wired connection, and told them that multiple times. I've wasted two hours with Comcast today, and even when I asked for escalation I got nothing. Just hung up on. It's honestly the worst customer support I've ever received. I don't think I ever got them to understand the difference between IPv4 and IPv6.
Re: Comcast IPv6 Milestone
Absolutely. We are close and are trying to finalize the firmware for a subset of our commercial DOCSIS devices. Stay tuned for news and updates on this front. Be sure to check www.comcast6.net, I will post updates here. John -Original Message- From: Jim Burwell j...@jsbc.cc Date: Thursday, July 24, 2014 at 16:16 To: John Brzozowski john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com, NANOG nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Milestone Congrats to you and your team John! I presume Comcast Business is still a work in progress? - Jim On 7/24/2014 08:08, Brzozowski, John wrote: FYI – please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions: http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-reaches-key-milestone -in-launch-of-ipv6-broadband-network Thank you, John = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable w) www.comcast6.net e) john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com =
Comcast IPv6 Milestone
FYI – please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions: http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-reaches-key-milestone-in-launch-of-ipv6-broadband-network Thank you, John = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable w) www.comcast6.net e) john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com =
Hulu contact?
If there is anyone from Hulu on the NANOG list can you please contact me unicast? Thanks, John = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable m) 609-377-6594 o) 484-962-0060 w) www.comcast6.net e) john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com =
Re: ATT UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO
Andrew, Question is this native or 6rd? According to my ARIN WHOIS query it looks like 6rd. Definitely great news that you were able to acquire IPv6. John Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 01:22:02 -0500 From: Andrew D Kirch trel...@trelane.net To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: ATT UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO Message-ID: 5290498a.6040...@trelane.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Special thanks to Alexander from ATT's Tier-2 dept, though my suspicion is that that is not where he works, as he seems exceptionally clueful. Additional thanks to Owen DeLong who finally got me off my ass to actually do this, I'll see you in the sky! Ok, is this core routing? not really, but it's nice to see a major clue injection over at ATT Uverse. I'm using this to document the MASSIVE bureaucratic PITA which is getting native IPv6 on uverse. You'll start from the default service on a 2wire modem (for values of modem that equate to profanity). If you have the Motorola NVG589, count yourself lucky and skip most of these steps. Abandon all hope ye who enter here Step 1: contact ATT Uverse support and complain that you need IPv6 (because we all need it, I in fact do for work). Step 2: general confusion as the level 1 droid doesn't know what IPv6 is, politely request to be transferred to tier 2 step 3: you will be told that tier 2 is a paid service, invoke the almighty FCC and ask to speak with a supervisor, expect a long hold here. step 4: you arrive at tier 2, mention that IPv6 won't work on your 2wire and that ATT has broken your protocol 41 tunnel with insert tunnel broker here, usually HE step 5: you'll need to get your 2wire replaced with a Motorola NVG589. Again you will be threatened with a cost to upgrade, mine was waived due to the work requirement. I'd guess some additional complaining and escalation will get this fee waived. My recollection was it was $100. The new modem is good news for quite a few reasons, the 2wire sucks, the Motorola sucks significantly less, and has a built in battery backup, but mine lacked the battery. step 6: you'll receive the motorola by mail, or have a tech install it, they actually had a tech in my area and I had an ATT tech at my door in less than 20 minutes from when I got off the phone with tier-2 (I about died from the shock). step 7: configure the motorola (192.168.1.254) for passthrough, DHCPS-dynamic, disable the firewall, the advanced firewall, hpna, wireless, etc. Step 8: reboot to push the public IP to your real router. step 9: head over to the Motorola's home network tab, and in the status window you'll see: IPv6 Status Available Global IPv6 Address 2602:306:cddd:::1/64 Link-local IPv6 Address fe80::923e:abff::7e40 Router Advertisement Prefix 2602:306:cddd:::/64 IPV6 Delegated LAN Prefix 2602:306:cddd::: 2602:306:cddd::: In reality additional poking leads me to believe ATT gives you a rather generous /60, but how to use it? step 10: set up dhcpv6, example for mikrotik follows (but should be easily convertible to nearly any router): /ipv6 export # dec/31/2001 20:26:03 by RouterOS 6.6 # software id = 5F2Y-X73L # /ipv6 address add address=2602:306:cddd:::1 from-pool=ATT interface=bridge1 /ipv6 dhcp-client add add-default-route=yes interface=ether10 pool-name=ATT I hope that this is of help to someone. Andrew = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable m) 609-377-6594 o) 484-962-0060 w) www.comcast6.net e) john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com =
comcast ipv6 PTR
The below is largely accurate. Comcast will support the creation of IPv6 PTR for static commercial IPv6 customers when we launch the same. We are currently in trial for dynamic commercial and are expanding our dynamic trials. Static IPv6 trials will be starting soon, hopefully November. John Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:41:50 -0500 From: Chris Adams c...@cmadams.net To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: comcast ipv6 PTR Message-ID: 20131009164150.gg1...@cmadams.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Once upon a time, Blair Trosper blair.tros...@gmail.com said: Does anyone know why (or can someone from Comcast explain why) there is no PTR on their residential/business IPv6 addresses? I believe business customers (with a static assignment) can request reverse DNS entries. Residential customers are not guaranteed a static assignment, so they can't get reverse set. -- Chris Adams c...@cmadams.net
Comcast Launches IPv6 for Business Customers
FYI for folks that are interested: http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-launches-ipv6-for-business-customers John = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com w) http://www.comcast6.net =
RE: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
I can confirm CGN has not been deployed for Comcast customers. = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable m) 609-377-6594 e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com o) 484-962-0060 w) http://www.comcast6.net = From: Rajiv Asati (rajiva) [raj...@cisco.com] Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 21:11 To: Huasong Zhou Cc: Joshua Smith; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN Nope. Comcast is not using any CGN, as much as I know. Is your MacBook directly connected to the modem or a router? I presume the latter. Cheers, Rajiv Sent from my Phone On Apr 7, 2013, at 11:47 AM, Huasong Zhou huas...@kalorama.com wrote: I think Comcast is using CGN too!!! My IP address displayed on my MacBook is in the 10.0.0.0/8 range, and ARIN website can't determine my IP address either. Joe Sent from my iPhone On Apr 6, 2013, at 9:33 PM, Joshua Smith juice...@gmail.com wrote: Very interesting indeed. Way to do the right thing here Verizon. This may be the first time I've been happy to be a Comcast customer. -- Josh Smith kD8HRX email/jabber: juice...@gmail.com Phone: 304.237.9369(c) Sent from my iPad On Apr 6, 2013, at 9:24 PM, cb.list6 cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting. http://www22.verizon.com/support/residential/internet/highspeedinternet/networking/troubleshooting/portforwarding/123897.htm
Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 107
See below. John -Original Message- From: nanog-requ...@nanog.org nanog-requ...@nanog.org Reply-To: NANOG nanog@nanog.org Date: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 11:18 AM To: NANOG nanog@nanog.org Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 107 Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 09:43:10 -0800 From: joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com To: Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net, NANOG list nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Programmers can't get IPv6 thus that is why they do not have IPv6 in their applications Message-ID: 51095bae.2020...@bogus.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed On 11/28/12 4:17 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote: On Nov 29, 2012, at 3:04 AM, Tony Hain wrote: Getting the cpe vendors to ship in quantity requires the ISP engineering organizations to say in unison we are deploying IPv6 and will only recommend products that pass testing. Do you see any evidence of that occurring? I don't. [jjmb] I do, where I have control and/or influence over products we absolutely require this or the device (or software) does not get deployed or enabled. There are cases where we deploy software that supports IPv6 but it is disabled. This is largely to ensure that my customers are not adversely impacted or have a poor customer experience. I admit getting quality implementations is not a trivial exercise even where good specifications are available. I view this as part of my job as such we are looking at techniques to streamline this process. Also, a lot of broadband consumers and enterprise organizations buy and deploy their own CPE. Do you see a lot of IPv6 activity there? As a product of having a motorola sb6121 and a netgear wndr3700 both of which I bought at frys I have ipv6 in my house with dhcp pd curtesy of commcast. If it was any simpler somebody else would have had to install it. [jjmb] this is our goal simple and seamless. I don't, excepting an IPv6 RFP checkbox for enterprises, which doesn't have any formal requirements and is essentially meaningless because of that fact. [jjmb] an IPv6 check box on an RFP means almost nothing, IPv6 has never been a one check box item. The rubber meets the road when a company chooses to buy based on IPv6 functionality or better yet swaps products out due to lack of IPv6 functionality. You claim to be looking for the economic incentive, but are looking with such a short time horizon that all you see are the 'waste' products vendors are pushing to make a quick sale, knowing that you will eventually come back for yet-another-hack to delay transition, and prop up your expertise in a legacy technology. No. What I am looking for is an economic incentive which will justify the [IMHO] wildly overoptimisitic claims which some are making in re ubiquitous end-to-end native IPv6 deployment. Otherwise, I believe it will be a much more gradual adoption curve, as you indicate. [jjmb] ubiquitous IPv6 deployment and use requires work, it is not going to happen automatically and will require effort. The same thing happened with the SNA faithful 15 years ago, and history shows what happened there. You attribute circumstances and motivations to me which do not apply. --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Luck is the residue of opportunity and design. -- John Milton
Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 110
-Original Message- From: nanog-requ...@nanog.org nanog-requ...@nanog.org Reply-To: NANOG nanog@nanog.org Date: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 5:13 PM To: NANOG nanog@nanog.org Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 110 Message: 7 Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:00:22 +1100 From: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org To: Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com Cc: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Programmers can't get IPv6 thus that is why they do not have IPv6 in their applications Message-ID: 20130130230022.e74bd2e93...@drugs.dv.isc.org In message 51099c0f.5040...@mtcc.com, Michael Thomas writes: On 01/30/2013 01:51 PM, Cutler James R wrote: On Jan 30, 2013, at 12:43 PM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote: As a product of having a motorola sb6121 and a netgear wndr3700 both of wh ich I bought at frys I have ipv6 in my house with dhcp pd curtesy of commcast . If it was any simpler somebody else would have had to install it. Except that Apple Airport Extreme users must have one of the newer hardware versions, that is my experience as well. And, even before Comcast and new AEBS, Hurricane Electric removed all other excuses for claiming no IPv6. Remove excuses != Create incentive. There are an infinite number of things I can do to remove excuses. Unless they're in my face (read: causing me headaches), they do not create incentive. My using my or my company's software which doesn't work in my own environment (= work, home, phone, etc) creates incentive. Lecturing me about how I can get a HE tunnel and that if I don't i'm ugly and my mother dresses me funny, otoh, just creates vexation . Mike Just having IPv6 doesn't create incentives to make their code work with IPv6. People just trundle along using IPv4. Turning off IPv4 creates incentives. Reducing IPv4's capabilities creates incentives. Being told this needs to work and be tested with IPv6 creates incentives. [jjmb] turning off IPv4 is not realistic at this time and there are other ways to encourage the use and adoption of IPv6. Enabling by default, requesting upgrades for existing products that introduce support for IPv6. Enabling IPv6 alone is a significant statement especially when your business relies on the same. The absence of IPv6 or broken IPv6 when your business relies on it are no longer options. Broken networks get people to fix things. Unfortunately most developers don't test with broken networks. If they did Happy Eyeballs would not have happened. The applications would have coped with only some address of a multi-homed server working. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 110
-Original Message- From: nanog-requ...@nanog.org nanog-requ...@nanog.org Reply-To: NANOG nanog@nanog.org Date: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 5:13 PM To: NANOG nanog@nanog.org Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 110 Message: 9 Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:13:43 -0800 (PST) From: David Barak thegame...@yahoo.com To: Cutler James R james.cut...@consultant.com, nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Programmers can't get IPv6 thus that is why they do not have IPv6 in their applications Message-ID: 1359591223.5270.yahoomailmob...@web31809.mail.mud.yahoo.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Comcast removed the no IPv6 excuse? That removal somehow skipped my house in Washington DC where they installed (last October) a router which does not even support it (an Arrus voice gateway- the one where you can#39;t turn of the crummy 2.4g wireless radio) and none of the folks I#39;ve spoken to on the phone can tell me when or if it will be coming. [jjmb] feel free to contact me offline, your device will soon be enabled with IPv6 support. I can add you to early trials for the same if you are interested. I look forward to Comcast giving me native v6 at home. [jjmb] IPv6 is launched in your area across our broadband network, we did not enable IPv6 for the device you have for a variety of reasons. See my other email about managing customer experience, the last thing I imagine you would want me to do is carelessly deploy software with issues. David Barak
Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 111
There is a lot more to come this year, so stay tuned. ;) John -Original Message- From: nanog-requ...@nanog.org nanog-requ...@nanog.org Reply-To: NANOG nanog@nanog.org Date: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 7:01 PM To: NANOG nanog@nanog.org Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 111 Message: 1 Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 11:52:39 +1100 From: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org To: David Barak thegame...@yahoo.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Programmers can't get IPv6 thus that is why they do not have IPv6 in their applications Message-ID: 20130131005239.c2de52e94...@drugs.dv.isc.org In message 1359591223.5270.yahoomailmob...@web31809.mail.mud.yahoo.com, David Barak writes: Comcast removed the no IPv6 excuse? That removal somehow skipped my house in Washington DC where they installed (last October) a router which does not even support it (an Arrus voice gateway- the one where you can#39;t turn of the crummy 2.4g wireless radio) and none of the folks I#39;ve spoken to on t he phone can tell me when or if it will be coming. I look forward to Comcast giving me native v6 at home. David Barak Firstly fix your mail client. What's this #39; garbage in text/plain? Deployment Update Published on Tuesday, October 23, 2012 IPv6 has been launched on all Arris DOCSIS 3.0 C4 CMTSes, covering over 50% our network. We are targeting completion of the rest of the network by mid-2013. Our progress has led to nearly 2.5% of our Xfinity Internet customers actively using native dual stack. Additionally, IPv6 traffic has increased 375% since World IPv6 Day in June 2011. Following World IPv6 Launch in June 2012 Comcast also observed that approximately 6% of the 2012 Olympics served over YouTube to Comcast customers was over IPv6. http://www.comcast6.net -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 113
This is news, it would be great if more details were available. Anyone? = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable m) +1-609-377-6594 e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com o) +1-484-962-0060 w) http://www.comcast6.net = -Original Message- From: nanog-requ...@nanog.org nanog-requ...@nanog.org Reply-To: NANOG nanog@nanog.org Date: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:20 PM To: NANOG nanog@nanog.org Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 113 Message: 1 Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:16:40 -0500 (EST) From: Justin M. Streiner strei...@cluebyfour.org To: Cutler James R james.cut...@consultant.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Programmers can't get IPv6 thus that is why they do not have IPv6 in their applications Message-ID: pine.lnx.4.64.1301302210440.4...@whammy.cluebyfour.org Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed On Wed, 30 Jan 2013, David Barak wrote: Comcast removed the no IPv6 excuse? That removal somehow skipped my house in Washington DC where they installed (last October) a router which does not even support it (an Arrus voice gateway- the one where you can#39;t turn of the crummy 2.4g wireless radio) and none of the folks I#39;ve spoken to on the phone can tell me when or if it will be coming. I know Verizon is rolling out v6 in some areas of their FiOS footprint. The router they provided supports it, but what I got from their customer service people was that they ran into some sort of issue with their TV set-top boxes working properly with IPv6 or at least in a dual-stack environment. At least that's where things stand in Pittsburgh. I don't think they've provided training to their customer service people on IPv6 yet. The rep I spoke with a few weeks ago told me I was the first customer that has asked her about it. Looking forward to native v6 / dual-stack here... jms
Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 113
Original Message- From: nanog-requ...@nanog.org nanog-requ...@nanog.org Reply-To: NANOG nanog@nanog.org Date: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:20 PM To: NANOG nanog@nanog.org Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 113 On Jan 30, 2013, at 7:52 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: The update you sent is lovely, except I can tell you that the one (also an Arris, running DOCSIS 3.0) which was installed in late October in my house in Washington simply does not run v6 with the pre-installed load. Now, is there some firmware upgrade which could fix this? Maybe, but it sure would be nice if the folks who answer the phone in support could direct me to someone who has heard of this technology. So no, as I said before, Comcast has *not* removed the v6 barrier here. I'd like it to just work, please. [jjmb] We are working on an image that will enable IPv6, it will not be long.
Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 113
http://mydeviceinfo.comcast.net is up to date and will have more devices this year. If the device is a standalone modem and has IPv6 checked you need to make sure your customer owned CPE supports IPv6 *AND* is enabled. Otherwise if it is an integrated device provided by Comcast or via retails, once the IPv6 checked box is checked IPv6 support will be enabled by default. However, please note in cases where the router can be disabled I will not override your selection. Integrated devices in router mode will be IPv6 enabled by default. John = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable m) +1-609-377-6594 e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com o) +1-484-962-0060 w) http://www.comcast6.net = -Original Message- From: nanog-requ...@nanog.org nanog-requ...@nanog.org Reply-To: NANOG nanog@nanog.org Date: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:20 PM To: NANOG nanog@nanog.org Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 60, Issue 113 Looking at http://mydeviceinfo.comcast.net you get a choice of wireless or IPv6 in Arris.
Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 54, Issue 3 (Comcast's IPv6 Information Site Unreachable)
Folks, We will report back shortly with some updates. Thanks for the mail. John = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable m) +1-609-377-6594 e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com o) +1-484-962-0060 w) http://www.comcast6.net = On Jul 1, 2012, at 10:46 PM, nanog-requ...@nanog.org nanog-requ...@nanog.org wrote: Send NANOG mailing list submissions to nanog@nanog.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to nanog-requ...@nanog.org You can reach the person managing the list at nanog-ow...@nanog.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of NANOG digest... Today's Topics: 1. Re: Comcast's IPv6 Information Site Unreachable (Sadiq Saif) 2. RE: Comcast's IPv6 Information Site Unreachable (Frank Bulk) 3. Re: Comcast's IPv6 Information Site Unreachable (Derek Ivey) 4. Re: [c-nsp] NTP Servers (Jimmy Hess) 5. Re: Comcast's IPv6 Information Site Unreachable (Jimmy Hess) 6. Re: FYI Netflix is down (steve pirk [egrep]) 7. Re: Comcast's IPv6 Information Site Unreachable (Derek Ivey) -- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 19:37:54 -0400 From: Sadiq Saif sa...@asininetech.com To: Derek Ivey de...@derekivey.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Comcast's IPv6 Information Site Unreachable Message-ID: cabslv--jqtdx3eyorrrawgxtv_uajfy7jzgecvrydo_wmq6...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Website is reachable here via my HE tunnel. Pings are not going through though as you showed. On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Derek Ivey de...@derekivey.com wrote: Anyone else having trouble getting to Comcast's IPv6 Information site? It appears to be unreachable over IPv6. [root@server ~]# ping6 comcast6.net PING comcast6.net(speedlab-app05.newcastlerdc.de.panjde.comcast.net) 56 data bytes From te-4-1-ur01.newcastlerdc.de.panjde.comcast.net icmp_seq=0 Destination unreachable: Administratively prohibited From te-4-1-ur01.newcastlerdc.de.panjde.comcast.net icmp_seq=1 Destination unreachable: Administratively prohibited From te-4-1-ur01.newcastlerdc.de.panjde.comcast.net icmp_seq=2 Destination unreachable: Administratively prohibited From te-4-1-ur01.newcastlerdc.de.panjde.comcast.net icmp_seq=3 Destination unreachable: Administratively prohibited From te-4-1-ur01.newcastlerdc.de.panjde.comcast.net icmp_seq=4 Destination unreachable: Administratively prohibited ^C --- comcast6.net ping statistics --- 5 packets transmitted, 0 received, +5 errors, 100% packet loss, time 4008ms [root@server ~]# traceroute6 comcast6.net traceroute to comcast6.net (2001:558:fe16:7:69:252:216:215), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 pfsense.d3r3k.net (2001:470:8:d15::1) 0.278 ms 0.282 ms 0.317 ms 2 2001:470:7:d15::1 (2001:470:7:d15::1) 20.794 ms 24.746 ms 28.569 ms 3 gige-g4-12.core1.ash1.he.net (2001:470:0:90::1) 28.946 ms 29.124 ms 29.144 ms 4 as6453.gige-g3-16.core1.ash1.he.net (2001:470:0:191::2) 28.917 ms 28.936 ms 28.097 ms 5 if-ae2.2.tcore2.AEQ-Ashburn.ipv6.as6453.net (2001:5a0:600:500::1) 28.059 ms 31.771 ms 57.135 ms 6 2001:5a0:600:500::72 (2001:5a0:600:500::72) 28.959 ms 2001:559::31d (2001:559::31d) 29.041 ms 29.060 ms 7 pos-3-11-0-0-cr01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net (2001:558:0:f5a4::1) 32.553 ms 19.810 ms 16.526 ms 8 2001:558:0:f669::2 (2001:558:0:f669::2) 39.019 ms 37.954 ms 36.368 ms 9 2001:558:0:f57f::1 (2001:558:0:f57f::1) 67.134 ms 67.151 ms 67.166 ms 10 pos-2-7-0-0-cr01.denver.co.ibone.comcast.net (2001:558:0:f54d::1) 81.571 ms 81.507 ms 81.569 ms 11 2001:558:0:f744::2 (2001:558:0:f744::2) 80.633 ms 80.760 ms 79.825 ms 12 2001:558:d0:33::1 (2001:558:d0:33::1) 104.686 ms 105.060 ms 105.040 ms 13 te-3-1-ur03.cmc.co.ndcwest.comcast.net (2001:558:d0:5::1) 104.335 ms 103.962 ms 104.068 ms 14 te-3-1-ur03.cmc.co.ndcwest.comcast.net (2001:558:d0:5::1) 104.492 ms !X 104.597 ms !X 104.999 ms !X Thanks, Derek -- Sadiq S O ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org -- Message: 2 Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 20:35:24 -0500 From: Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com To: 'Derek Ivey' de...@derekivey.com, nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Comcast's IPv6 Information Site Unreachable Message-ID: 000201cd57f2$f3973e90$dac5bbb0$@iname.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii ICMP to www.comcast6.net has been blocked since 3:16 pm Central on 6/7/2012. But their site loads fine over port 80. Frank -Original Message- From: Derek Ivey [mailto:de...@derekivey.com] Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2012 6:28 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Comcast's IPv6 Information Site
Re: A's for www.xfinitytv.com
Paul, Circling back here, you all set here? Should see the following over IPv6 and IPv4: xfinity.comcast.net xfinitytv.comcast.net John = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable m) +1-609-377-6594 e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com o) +1-484-962-0060 w) http://www.comcast6.net = On Jun 8, 2012, at 10:33 AM, Paul WALL wrote: I'm not learning any records for Streampix (www.xfinitytv.com), only A's. The domains this site redirects to are available over a v6 transport, but not the actual streaming. Anyone know what's going on? Thanks, Paul Wall
RE: sporadic IPv6 connectivity to forums.comcast.com
We are investigating. Original Message From: Casey Deccio ca...@deccio.net Sent: Thu, 07/06/2012 18:47 To: nanog@nanog.org CC: Subject: sporadic IPv6 connectivity to forums.comcast.com I'm seeing sporadic IPv6 connectivity issues to forums.comcast.com: casey@rome$ curl -I6 forums.comcast.com HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 21:48:37 GMT [snip...] casey@rome$ curl -I6 forums.comcast.com curl: (7) couldn't connect to host casey@rome:~$ traceroute6 forums.comcast.com traceroute to forums.comcast.com (2620:6a:8000:4::11) from 2001:470:21:31::adf5:492a, port 33434, from port 42309, 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 2001:470:21:31::1 (2001:470:21:31::1) 1.713 ms 1.922 ms 2.039 ms 2 2001:470:1f:b::1 (2001:470:1f:b::1) 10.575 ms 3.343 ms 3.147 ms 3 10gigabitethernet1-1.core1.sjc1.he.net (2001:470:1:7c::1) 6.855 ms 4.225 ms 4.252 ms 4 10gigabitethernet2-1.core1.sjc2.he.net (2001:470:0:55::2) 4.271 ms 14.442 ms 4.469 ms 5 sjo-eqx-s1-link.telia.net (2001:2000:3080:1b7::1) 5.385 ms 4.669 ms 4.434 ms 6 internap-ic-140172-sjo-bb1.c.telia.net (2001:2000:3080:17f::2) 4.702 ms 4.803 ms 4.848 ms 7 border1-bbnet2.sje.pnap.net (2600:c02:0:102::1:1) 5.175 ms 25.023 ms 4.808 ms 8 lithiumtechinc-2.border1.sje.pnap.net (2600:c02:1001:3::2) 9.445 ms 8.120 ms 7.804 ms 9 2620:6a:8000:4::11 (2620:6a:8000:4::11) 5.491 ms 5.712 ms 5.873 ms casey@rome:~$ traceroute6 forums.comcast.com traceroute to forums.comcast.com (2620:6a:8000:4::11) from 2001:470:21:31::adf5:492a, port 33434, from port 42311, 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 2001:470:21:31::1 (2001:470:21:31::1) 1.574 ms 1.514 ms 1.856 ms 2 2001:470:1f:b::1 (2001:470:1f:b::1) 2.882 ms 3.089 ms 14.462 ms 3 10gigabitethernet1-1.core1.sjc1.he.net (2001:470:1:7c::1) 4.573 ms 4.466 ms 6.683 ms 4 10gigabitethernet2-1.core1.sjc2.he.net (2001:470:0:55::2) 4.525 ms 10.401 ms 4.748 ms 5 sjo-eqx-s1-link.telia.net (2001:2000:3080:1b7::1) 4.794 ms 4.931 ms 4.406 ms 6 internap-ic-140172-sjo-bb1.c.telia.net (2001:2000:3080:17f::2) 4.837 ms 4.922 ms 4.527 ms 7 border1-bbnet1.sje.pnap.net (2600:c02:0:101::1:1) 5.884 ms 4.626 ms 5.037 ms 8 border3-bbnet2.sje.pnap.net (2600:c02:0:102::1:3) 3157.850 ms !H 3270.481 ms !H 3226.411 ms !H Is this perhaps a routing issue? Casey
Re: Comcast IPv6 Update
Jimmy, Trust me, I work for Comcast and run the IPv6 program. This has been the case for nearly 7 years. We can take some of the items below off list. We have launched IPv6 for residential broadband at this time. Commercial DOCSIS support is later this year. We can do two things. Get you a residential trial kit so you can have IPv6 for W6L and make sure I have your information for when we start trials for commercial DOCSIS support for IPv6. John = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable m) +1-609-377-6594 e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com o) +1-484-962-0060 w) http://www.comcast6.net = -Original Message- From: Jimmy Sadri jim...@myesn.com Date: Friday, June 1, 2012 9:51 AM To: Jason Livingood jason_living...@cable.comcast.com, 'Blake T. Pfankuch' bl...@pfankuch.me, John Jason Brzozowski john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com, NANOG nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Comcast IPv6 Update Jason, I remembered this post and decided to check on the status of this for World Ipv6 day coming up in on the 5th of this month and so I called Comcast bussiness support... what a nightmare... the first guy told me that I already have static IP address so why do I need Ipv6 addresses? Then he told me that I can still surf the Internet with Ipv4 addresses and I don't need Ipv6 addresses. I asked to speak to someone who knows more about the Ipv6 rollout he then told me that there is nothing to know. I tried to get him to escalate it as you suggested below but he refused telling me that a request for Ipv6 addresses is not a valid technical reason to escalate. He did offer to let me speak to his supervisor. His supervisor wasn't much better. I explained to him how I have been following things on comcast6.net and with Ipv6 day coming up I thought maybe there had been somekind of forward progress on deployment and could he at least point me in the right direction for someone to talk to about it. He then told me that there is no such person and that if there was such a person that Comcast's Ipv6 rollout plans and locations are proprietary information not to revealed to customers like me. I referenced NANOG and the below post and was told first that how do I know that person is actually a Comcast employee? I guess besides the addresses from you guys @cable.comcast.com I don't know for sure that you guys are actually Comcast employees I just asume that you are who you say you are. For the record I don't doubt that you guys work for Comcast but then the supervisor tells me that even IF the people I referenced DO work for Comcast that they are in violation of company policy for speaking in a public forum and claiming to work for Comcast... Wow... I just wanted some info on deployment scheduling and possilbe timelines for getting Ipv6 and I get all that. Gotta say they could really do better in the customer service dept. I wonder if you guys have any more info on this or can at least point me in the right direction... like I said I already tried Comcast Business Support with the above results... so I guess if you can help find out this before World Ipv6 day so that I could participate that would be ideal... I wonder if anyone else has tried getting this info on the list with better results? - Jimmy -Original Message- From: Livingood, Jason [mailto:jason_living...@cable.comcast.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2011 8:58 AM To: Blake T. Pfankuch; Brzozowski, John; NANOG Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Update On 11/9/11 11:54 AM, Blake T. Pfankuch bl...@pfankuch.me wrote: This appears directed at the Home market. Any word on the Business Class market even as a /128? Business Class is coming later. It won't hurt to contact the Business Class sales number and ask about IPv6 (and tell them to escalate it) - it all helps get us internal support and buy in. It is definitely on our radar though. - Jason
Re: Comcast IPv6 Update
Commercial DOCSIS is later this year. Commercial fiber can be supported now. John = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable m) +1-609-377-6594 e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com o) +1-484-962-0060 w) http://www.comcast6.net = -Original Message- From: Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net Date: Friday, June 1, 2012 9:56 AM To: Jimmy Sadri jim...@myesn.com Cc: Jason Livingood jason_living...@cable.comcast.com, 'Blake T. Pfankuch' bl...@pfankuch.me, John Jason Brzozowski john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com, NANOG nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Update My understanding is that Comcast only does IPv6 on business customers that are on their backbone network, not those on their docsis network. If you have BGP or fiber with 7922 you should be able to get IPv6. - Jared On Jun 1, 2012, at 9:51 AM, Jimmy Sadri wrote: Wow... I just wanted some info on deployment scheduling and possilbe timelines for getting Ipv6 and I get all that. Gotta say they could really do better in the customer service dept. I wonder if you guys have any more info on this or can at least point me in the right direction... like I said I already tried Comcast Business Support with the above results... so I guess if you can help find out this before World Ipv6 day so that I could participate that would be ideal... I wonder if anyone else has tried getting this info on the list with better results?
RE: How are you doing DHCPv6 ?
You might want to give this a read: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-02.txt Original Message From: Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net Sent: Tue, Jan 17, 2012 5:4 PM To: Nanog nanog@nanog.org CC: Subject: How are you doing DHCPv6 ? I am wondering how people out there are using DHCPv6 to handle assigning prefixes to end users. We have a requirement for it to be a redundant server that is centrally located. DHCPv6 will be relayed from each customer access segment. We have been looking at using ISC dhcpd, as that is what we use for v4. However, it currently does not support any redundancy. It also does not do very much useful logging for DHCPv6 requests. Certainly not enough to keep track of users and devices. So, my questions are: How are you doing DHCPv6 with Prefix Delegation? What software are you using? When DHCPv6 with Prefix Delegation seems to be about the only way to deploy IPv6 to end users in a generic device-agnostic fashion, I am wondering why it is so difficult to find a working solution. thanks, -Randy -- | Randy Carpenter | Vice President - IT Services | Red Hat Certified Engineer | First Network Group, Inc. | (800)578-6381, Opt. 1
Re: How are you doing DHCPv6 ?
The draft does help you, it is a BCP and does not specify a standard. It outlines some BCPs that are usable today. I believe I tested and verified that what I outlined works with the ISC DHCPv6 server. It also works with other DHCPv6 servers as well. John = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com o) 609-377-6594 m) 484-962-0060 w) http://www.comcast6.net = On 1/17/12 6:19 PM, Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net wrote: You might want to give this a read: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-02.txt That doesn't really help us if we want to deploy before that draft becomes a standard. Are there any DHCPv6 servers currently that actually function in a fashion that is suitable for service providers? -Randy Original Message From: Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net Sent: Tue, Jan 17, 2012 5:4 PM To: Nanog nanog@nanog.org CC: Subject: How are you doing DHCPv6 ? I am wondering how people out there are using DHCPv6 to handle assigning prefixes to end users. We have a requirement for it to be a redundant server that is centrally located. DHCPv6 will be relayed from each customer access segment. We have been looking at using ISC dhcpd, as that is what we use for v4. However, it currently does not support any redundancy. It also does not do very much useful logging for DHCPv6 requests. Certainly not enough to keep track of users and devices. So, my questions are: How are you doing DHCPv6 with Prefix Delegation? What software are you using? When DHCPv6 with Prefix Delegation seems to be about the only way to deploy IPv6 to end users in a generic device-agnostic fashion, I am wondering why it is so difficult to find a working solution. thanks, -Randy -- | Randy Carpenter | Vice President - IT Services | Red Hat Certified Engineer | First Network Group, Inc. | (800)578-6381, Opt. 1
Re: How are you doing DHCPv6 ?
On 1/17/12 6:37 PM, Daniel Roesen d...@cluenet.de wrote: On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 06:19:28PM -0500, Randy Carpenter wrote: You might want to give this a read: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-02.txt That doesn't really help us if we want to deploy before that draft becomes a standard. Well, it more or less just presents options (workarounds for missing proper HA sync). [jjmb] correct. FWIW the IETF dhcwg is currently working on DHCPv6 failover/redundancy. See here for the requirements: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mrugalski-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-requirements -00 Are there any DHCPv6 servers currently that actually function in a fashion that is suitable for service providers? Without specifying your requirements, that's hard to say. If you're looking for fully state-sync'ed DHCPv6 server HA, I'm not aware of any. [jjmb] same here, I expect a specification would be required first. Cisco unfortunately pushed that another year into the future for CNR, so we're resorting for now to the Split Prefixes model described in abovementioned draft, effectively halving our DHCPv6-PD pools and thus exacerbates the negative effects of RIPE's overly converservative policy (HD-Ratio 0.94) on IPv6 by effectively stealing one bit (half the address space) just for redundancy. :-( [jjmb] we have to do what we have to do, the good news migration to a proper failover model should be straight forward. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: d...@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Re: IPv6 prefixes longer then /64: are they possible in DOCSIS networks?
See below.
On 12/1/11 5:11 AM, Dmitry Cherkasov doctor...@gmail.com wrote:
John,
Due to your note I carefully read again Cable Labs specs and found
that really SLAAC is not prohibited. According to CM-SP-MULPIv3.0:
[jjmb] I was part of the team that wrote IPv6 for DOCSIS, so I know the
history well. ;)
* If the M bit in the RA is set to 1, the CM (cable modem) MUST use
DHCPv6 ...;
* If there are no prefix information options in the RA, the CM MUST
NOT perform SLAAC;
[jjmb] even if there are PIOs and the A bit is set to 0, the CM will
not/must not perform SLAAC.
* If the RA contains a prefix advertisement with the A bit set to 0,
the CM MUST NOT perform SLAAC on that prefix.
[jjmb] yes, see above.
That means that if M bit in the RA is set to 0 and RA contains a
prefix advertisement with the A bit set to 1 nothing prevents CM from
SLAAC.
[jjmb] correct.
And if so we probably better reserve /64 per network just in case we
may use SLAAC in it in the future. While we do not use SLAAC we can
shorten the range of actually used IPv6 addresses by using longer then
/64 prefix.
[jjmb] I suppose, again not sure why you would want to take this route.
This also assumes no PIOs in the RA. Please note there are other
operational reason why SLAAC is not a truly deployable alternative. We
can discuss off list if you are interested.
You are completely right that prefix delegation enforce DHCPv6 so
SLAAC mentioned above can be used only for CMs, not for CPE.
[jjmb] similar to cable modems, CPEs that only request or require IA_NA
could conceivably use SLAAC. Same caveat and comments as above.
Just a note: as far as I can see available DOCSIS 3.0 CMTSes do not
support the ability of SLAAC for CMs currently (checked Casa and Cisco
uBR10K).
[jjmb] I am sure you make it work on at least one of the above. :)
Dmitry Cherkasov
2011/11/30 Brzozowski, John john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com:
Technically this is not true. SLAAC is not prohibited, it does come
with
side affects that complicate the deployment of IPv6. It is technically
feasible to use SLAAC, it is just not practical in most cases.
Stateful DHCPv6 is the preferred mechanism for address and configuration
assignment. Prefix delegation requires the use of stateful DHCPv6 in
DOCSIS networks.
John
=
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Cable
e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com
o) 609-377-6594
m) 484-962-0060
w) http://www.comcast6.net
=
On 11/29/11 7:09 AM, Dmitry Cherkasov doctor...@gmail.com wrote:
Steven,
SLAAC is prohibited for using in DOCSIS networks, router
advertisements that allow SLAAC must be ignored by end-devices,
therefore DHCPv6 is the only way of configuring (if not talking about
statical assignment). I have seen at least Windows7 handling this
properly in its default configuration: it starts DHCPv6 negotiation
instead of auto-configuration.
Dmitry Cherkasov
2011/11/29 Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu:
On Nov 28, 2011, at 4:51 52PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Nov 28, 2011, at 7:29 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
It's a good practice to reserve a 64-bit prefix for each network.
That's a good general rule. For point to point or link networks you
can use something as small as a 126-bit prefix (we do).
Technically, absent buggy {firm,soft}ware, you can use a /127.
There's
no
actual benefit to doing anything longer than a /64 unless you have
buggy *ware (ping pong attacks only work against buggy *ware),
and there can be some advantages to choosing addresses other than
::1 and ::2 in some cases. If you're letting outside packets target
your
point-to-point links, you have bigger problems than neighbor table
attacks. If not, then the neighbor table attack is a bit of a
red-herring.
The context is DOCSIS, i.e., primarily residential cable modem users,
and
the cable company ISPs do not want to spend time on customer care and
hand-holding. How are most v6 machines configured by default? That
is,
what did Microsoft do for Windows Vista and Windows 7? If they're set
for
stateless autoconfig, I strongly suspect that most ISPs will want to
stick
with that and hand out /64s to each network. (That's apart from the
larger
question of why they should want to do anything else...)
--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Re: IPv6 prefixes longer then /64: are they possible in DOCSIS networks?
From a requirements point of view I am not sure I would enforce these sort of restrictions. John On 11/29/11 6:59 AM, Dmitry Cherkasov doctor...@gmail.com wrote: John, I am determining technical requirements to IPv6 provisioning system for DOCSIS networks and I am deciding if it is worth to restrict user to use not less then /64 networks on cable interface. It is obvious that no true economy of IP addresses can be achieved with increasing prefix length above 64 bits. As for using EUI-64, unlike random or sequential generation it provides predictable results that may be desired, e.g. for tracking some device migration between different networks. Dmitry Cherkasov 2011/11/29 Brzozowski, John john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com: Dmitry, You could consider the use of prefixes longer than the /64 on CMTS interfaces, however, it is not clear to me why this would be done. Further, most DHCPv6 implementations do not require that the generated IPv6 address be eui-64 based. A randomized algorithm could also be used. Another consideration is what happens after IPv6 is used for addressing cable modems. What happens when you want to address CPE or CPE routers? You are right back to /64 or shorter depending on the type of device being provisioned. FWIW - we have found that there are distinct benefits to using IPv6 beyond the amount of addresses that are available. The use of /64 is tightly coupled with these benefits. Can you elaborate as to why one would want to or need to use prefixes longer than /64? John On 11/28/11 6:37 AM, Dmitry Cherkasov doctor...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everybody, It is commonly agreed that /64 is maximal length for LANs because if we use longer prefix we introduce conflict with stateless address autoconfiguration (SLAAC) based on EUI-64 spec. But SLAAC is not used in DOCSIS networks. So there seems to be no objections to use smaller networks per cable interfaces of CMTS. I was not able to find any recommendations anywhere including Cable Labs specs for using prefixes not greater then /64 in DOCSIS networks. Some tech from ISP assumed that DHCPv6 server may generate interface ID part of IPv6 address similarly to EUI-64 so MAC address of the device can easily be obtained from its IPv6 address, but this does not seem like convincing argument. What do you think? Dmitry Cherkasov
Re: IPv6 prefixes longer then /64: are they possible in DOCSIS networks?
Technically this is not true. SLAAC is not prohibited, it does come with
side affects that complicate the deployment of IPv6. It is technically
feasible to use SLAAC, it is just not practical in most cases.
Stateful DHCPv6 is the preferred mechanism for address and configuration
assignment. Prefix delegation requires the use of stateful DHCPv6 in
DOCSIS networks.
John
=
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Cable
e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com
o) 609-377-6594
m) 484-962-0060
w) http://www.comcast6.net
=
On 11/29/11 7:09 AM, Dmitry Cherkasov doctor...@gmail.com wrote:
Steven,
SLAAC is prohibited for using in DOCSIS networks, router
advertisements that allow SLAAC must be ignored by end-devices,
therefore DHCPv6 is the only way of configuring (if not talking about
statical assignment). I have seen at least Windows7 handling this
properly in its default configuration: it starts DHCPv6 negotiation
instead of auto-configuration.
Dmitry Cherkasov
2011/11/29 Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu:
On Nov 28, 2011, at 4:51 52PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Nov 28, 2011, at 7:29 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
It's a good practice to reserve a 64-bit prefix for each network.
That's a good general rule. For point to point or link networks you
can use something as small as a 126-bit prefix (we do).
Technically, absent buggy {firm,soft}ware, you can use a /127. There's
no
actual benefit to doing anything longer than a /64 unless you have
buggy *ware (ping pong attacks only work against buggy *ware),
and there can be some advantages to choosing addresses other than
::1 and ::2 in some cases. If you're letting outside packets target
your
point-to-point links, you have bigger problems than neighbor table
attacks. If not, then the neighbor table attack is a bit of a
red-herring.
The context is DOCSIS, i.e., primarily residential cable modem users,
and
the cable company ISPs do not want to spend time on customer care and
hand-holding. How are most v6 machines configured by default? That is,
what did Microsoft do for Windows Vista and Windows 7? If they're set
for
stateless autoconfig, I strongly suspect that most ISPs will want to
stick
with that and hand out /64s to each network. (That's apart from the
larger
question of why they should want to do anything else...)
--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Re: IPv6 prefixes longer then /64: are they possible in DOCSIS networks?
Dmitry, You could consider the use of prefixes longer than the /64 on CMTS interfaces, however, it is not clear to me why this would be done. Further, most DHCPv6 implementations do not require that the generated IPv6 address be eui-64 based. A randomized algorithm could also be used. Another consideration is what happens after IPv6 is used for addressing cable modems. What happens when you want to address CPE or CPE routers? You are right back to /64 or shorter depending on the type of device being provisioned. FWIW - we have found that there are distinct benefits to using IPv6 beyond the amount of addresses that are available. The use of /64 is tightly coupled with these benefits. Can you elaborate as to why one would want to or need to use prefixes longer than /64? John On 11/28/11 6:37 AM, Dmitry Cherkasov doctor...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everybody, It is commonly agreed that /64 is maximal length for LANs because if we use longer prefix we introduce conflict with stateless address autoconfiguration (SLAAC) based on EUI-64 spec. But SLAAC is not used in DOCSIS networks. So there seems to be no objections to use smaller networks per cable interfaces of CMTS. I was not able to find any recommendations anywhere including Cable Labs specs for using prefixes not greater then /64 in DOCSIS networks. Some tech from ISP assumed that DHCPv6 server may generate interface ID part of IPv6 address similarly to EUI-64 so MAC address of the device can easily be obtained from its IPv6 address, but this does not seem like convincing argument. What do you think? Dmitry Cherkasov
Re: IPv6 prefixes longer then /64: are they possible in DOCSIS networks?
On 11/28/11 10:29 AM, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote: It's a good practice to reserve a 64-bit prefix for each network. That's a good general rule. For point to point or link networks you can use something as small as a 126-bit prefix (we do). [jjmb] for point to point I agree with this point. If a /64 is reserved one has greater flexibility as far as what is configured on the interfaces. When it comes to implementation, though, it's not as simple as a yes or no answer. The actual use of 64-bit prefixes is not something I would currently recommend for large-scale deployments due to the denial of service attack vector it opens up (neighbor table exhaustion). [jjmb] not sure I agree, this depends on where the prefix is being installed in the network. Not using 64-bit prefixes tosses SLAAC out the window; but for many networks SLAAC may not be desirable anyway due to the lack of control it presents. Once vendors come out with routers that are able to protect against neighbor table exhaustion, moving to a 64-bit prefix (which you hopefully reserved) will allow you to be more flexible in what addressing methods are used. On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Dmitry Cherkasov doctor...@gmail.com wrote: Hello everybody, It is commonly agreed that /64 is maximal length for LANs because if we use longer prefix we introduce conflict with stateless address autoconfiguration (SLAAC) based on EUI-64 spec. But SLAAC is not used in DOCSIS networks. So there seems to be no objections to use smaller networks per cable interfaces of CMTS. I was not able to find any recommendations anywhere including Cable Labs specs for using prefixes not greater then /64 in DOCSIS networks. Some tech from ISP assumed that DHCPv6 server may generate interface ID part of IPv6 address similarly to EUI-64 so MAC address of the device can easily be obtained from its IPv6 address, but this does not seem like convincing argument. What do you think? Dmitry Cherkasov -- Ray Soucy Epic Communications Specialist Phone: +1 (207) 561-3526 Networkmaine, a Unit of the University of Maine System http://www.networkmaine.net/
Re: IPv6 prefixes longer then /64: are they possible in DOCSIS networks?
I mentioned this in an earlier reply. CM vs CPE vs CPE router are all
different use cases. From a CPE or CPE router point of view SLAAC will
likely not be used to provisioned devices, stateful DHCPv6 is required.
As such Vista/7 machines that are directly connected to cable modems will
receive an IPv6 address and configuration options via stateful DHCPv6.
The same now applies to OSX Lion.
I do agree that many host implementations have been built around /64
assumptions and departures from the same at this time will seemingly
introduce more problems that benefits.
John
On 11/28/11 5:00 PM, Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu wrote:
On Nov 28, 2011, at 4:51 52PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Nov 28, 2011, at 7:29 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
It's a good practice to reserve a 64-bit prefix for each network.
That's a good general rule. For point to point or link networks you
can use something as small as a 126-bit prefix (we do).
Technically, absent buggy {firm,soft}ware, you can use a /127. There's
no
actual benefit to doing anything longer than a /64 unless you have
buggy *ware (ping pong attacks only work against buggy *ware),
and there can be some advantages to choosing addresses other than
::1 and ::2 in some cases. If you're letting outside packets target your
point-to-point links, you have bigger problems than neighbor table
attacks. If not, then the neighbor table attack is a bit of a
red-herring.
The context is DOCSIS, i.e., primarily residential cable modem users, and
the cable company ISPs do not want to spend time on customer care and
hand-holding. How are most v6 machines configured by default? That is,
what did Microsoft do for Windows Vista and Windows 7? If they're set for
stateless autoconfig, I strongly suspect that most ISPs will want to stick
with that and hand out /64s to each network. (That's apart from the
larger
question of why they should want to do anything else...)
--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Re: IPv6 prefixes longer then /64: are they possible in DOCSIS networks?
On 11/28/11 6:13 PM, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote:
Basically, if the address used by a host is allocated using RFC
3971/4861/4941, the host assumes a /64 from the router and concocts a 64
bit EID as specified. If the address used by the host is allocated using
DHCP/DHCPv6, it is the 128 bit number assigned by the DHCP server. I see
no reason you couldn't use a /127 prefix if the link was point to point.
[jjmb] How would this address be assigned? Statically? Practically, I do
not see how this would be useful. I do agree it is possible.
As you note, there is significant deployment of ND, and insignificant
deployment of DHCPv6. However, any network that is in control of all of
its hosts should be able to specify the use of DHCPv6.
[jjmb] I do not agree about the insignificance of DHCPv6 deployment, ND
support is certainly greater. Having control over hosts ie an enterprise
environment, creates the opportunity to mandate DHCPv6, it does not always
it should be required. Again this depends on the deployment scenario.
On Nov 28, 2011, at 2:39 PM, Brzozowski, John wrote:
I mentioned this in an earlier reply. CM vs CPE vs CPE router are all
different use cases. From a CPE or CPE router point of view SLAAC will
likely not be used to provisioned devices, stateful DHCPv6 is required.
As such Vista/7 machines that are directly connected to cable modems
will
receive an IPv6 address and configuration options via stateful DHCPv6.
The same now applies to OSX Lion.
I do agree that many host implementations have been built around /64
assumptions and departures from the same at this time will seemingly
introduce more problems that benefits.
John
On 11/28/11 5:00 PM, Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu wrote:
On Nov 28, 2011, at 4:51 52PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Nov 28, 2011, at 7:29 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
It's a good practice to reserve a 64-bit prefix for each network.
That's a good general rule. For point to point or link networks you
can use something as small as a 126-bit prefix (we do).
Technically, absent buggy {firm,soft}ware, you can use a /127. There's
no
actual benefit to doing anything longer than a /64 unless you have
buggy *ware (ping pong attacks only work against buggy *ware),
and there can be some advantages to choosing addresses other than
::1 and ::2 in some cases. If you're letting outside packets target
your
point-to-point links, you have bigger problems than neighbor table
attacks. If not, then the neighbor table attack is a bit of a
red-herring.
The context is DOCSIS, i.e., primarily residential cable modem users,
and
the cable company ISPs do not want to spend time on customer care and
hand-holding. How are most v6 machines configured by default? That
is,
what did Microsoft do for Windows Vista and Windows 7? If they're set
for
stateless autoconfig, I strongly suspect that most ISPs will want to
stick
with that and hand out /64s to each network. (That's apart from the
larger
question of why they should want to do anything else...)
--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Comcast IPv6 Update
Update from http://www.comcast6.net IPv6 Pilot Market Deployment Begins Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Comcast has started our first pilot market deployment of IPv6 in limited areas of California and Colorado. This first phase supports directly connected CPE, where a single computer is directly connected to a cable device. A subsequent phase will support home gateway devices. To learn more, check out FAQs on the pilot market deploymenthttp://www.comcast6.net/pilotfaq.php and the announcementhttp://blog.comcast.com/2011/11/ipv6-deployment.html and technical detailshttp://blog.comcast.com/2011/11/ipv6-deployment-technology.html on our blog. John = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com o) 609-377-6594 m) 484-962-0060 w) http://www.comcast6.net =
Re: Comcast IPv6 Update
This is not all we are pursuing, it is part of our incremental enablement and deployment. We have a non-trivial population of users that are directly connected versus using a home router. If you notice we also mention that we will soon be sharing information about customer home gateway plans. Stay tuned. John = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com o) 609-377-6594 m) 484-962-0060 w) http://www.comcast6.net = On 11/9/11 11:47 AM, Steve Clark scl...@netwolves.com wrote: On 11/09/2011 11:40 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote: On 2011-11-09 17:32 , Brzozowski, John wrote: Update from http://www.comcast6.net IPv6 Pilot Market Deployment Begins Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Comcast has started our first pilot market deployment of IPv6... Congrats! One step closer to full deployment! Greets, Jeroen Sort of interesting that you are only handing out a single address and not a prefix - which seems contradictory to all recommended practices. Will this be a continued effort for ISP's to charge for extra routable addresses? My $.02 -- Stephen Clark NetWolves Sr. Software Engineer III Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com
Re: Comcast IPv6 Update
:) = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com o) 609-377-6594 m) 484-962-0060 w) http://www.comcast6.net = On 11/9/11 11:49 AM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Jeroen Massar jer...@unfix.org wrote: On 2011-11-09 17:32 , Brzozowski, John wrote: Update from http://www.comcast6.net IPv6 Pilot Market Deployment Begins Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Comcast has started our first pilot market deployment of IPv6... Congrats! One step closer to full deployment! +1 Glad to hear some good news about IPv6 deployment. Now, lets talk about deployment in Seattle :)
Re: IPv6 day fun is beginning!
You might want to consider 655 or 825 from Dlink and the Apple Airport Extreme and Time Capsule. We have had a pretty good experience with these models thus far. John = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com o) 609-377-6594 m) 484-962-0060 w) http://www.comcast6.net = On 6/8/11 9:07 AM, TJ trej...@gmail.com wrote: Just FWIW: US, Amazon, Dlink, DIR615, $35.45 ... /TJ On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 08:46, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: In message b7872a58-de28-4cc2-8929-931fd3ce0...@delong.com, Owen DeLong write s: On Jun 7, 2011, at 9:15 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: =20 In message = AF24AE2D4A4D334FB9B667985E2AE763A3AC06@mail1-sea.office.spectrumnet .us, John van Oppen writes: I was wondering the same thing... we have v6 enabled to about 700 = users i=3D n our native Ethernet to the home deployment here in Seattle.= Unfortunat=3D ely, user routers don't seem to often support v6 resulting in only = about 2-=3D 8% of users in most buildings using it, and most of those are just = people p=3D lugged directly into the wall jacks we provide without routers. I = wonder =3D how long it will take for everyone to upgrade their home routers. =20 John =20 If all the home CPE router vendors stopped shipping IPv4 only boxes, not that long. At the moment the price point for IPv6 CPE routers is still 2-3x the IPv4 only boxes when you can find one though not all of that difference is IPv6. The IPv6 boxes often have multiple radio and other extras. This shows that CPE vendors still see IPv6 as something *extra* and not something that should be *standard*. =20 The D-Link DIR series v6 capables are not actually more than about a 10% premium over the corresponding ipv4-only competition. I see them in computer stores fairly regularly these days. Owen Wireless G Modem Router $79.00 v4 G N-150 $79.95 v4 G DIR-615 $129.00 v4/v6 G/N DIR-815 $199.95 v4/v6 G/N The IPv6 price point is still well above the IPv4 only price point. 1.00AUD = 1.06USD -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: Thank you Microsoft (and others)
+1 Jared. Big thanks to all the participants and the ISOC. John = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com o) 609-377-6594 m) 484-962-0060 w) http://www.comcast6.net = On 6/8/11 9:20 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote: I think it's important to thank Microsoft for leaving sites like xbox IPv6 enabled. Hope many other participants leave it on as well. I think it's a certain sign of the maturity of the protocol and networks at this stage of the game. I have observed some traffic step-down in the network, but it's not entirely clear if it's lowered to levels pre-v6-day. Looking forward to those sharing data at NANOG next week. (I'm not convinced the data I have is worth sharing, but will send it over to the nanogpc soon enough..) - Jared On Jun 8, 2011, at 9:09 PM, Shahid Shafi wrote: I dont think ISOC dashboard is updating any more. Google is no longer advertising but dashboard still shows green and TTLs were short on those records.
Re: Comcast's 6to4 Relays
Doug, I am aware of the drafts you cited earlier, as Mikael mentions below the existence of the same will not result in 6to4 being turned off automatically or immediately. This process will likely take years. Please note the goal here is not to make 6to4 great, like many others we hope to see 6to4 use diminish over time. Thanks, John = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com o) 609-377-6594 m) 484-962-0060 w) http://www.comcast6.net = On 4/19/11 5:55 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote: On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, Doug Barton wrote: Another view (one that I personally hold) is that any effort you might be putting into making 6to4 work better would be better placed in deploying real IPv6 instead; and that the world would be a better place generally if all of the so-called transition mechanisms just went away. I am all for getting fewer people to use 6to4, especially without them actually making a decision to use it, but giving more people access to high quality (I hope they are) 6to4 relays is seldom a downside. The drafts you mention make special notes that operators should NOT start to shut down relays, first of all we need to get fewer people to use 6to4, THEN we start to remove the relays. Starting at the relay end is bad, mmkay. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Comcast's 6to4 Relays
Folks, Since deploying our 6to4 relays, Comcast has observed a substantial reduction in the latency associated with the use of 6to4. As such we are contemplating further opening our relays for use by others. The availability of our 6to4 relays should improve the experience of others using 6to4 as a means to access content and services over IPv6. We have been open about our IPv6 activities and wanted to follow suit by reaching out to the community and soliciting feedback before moving forward. As always we wish to continue to advocate and support the universal deployment of IPv6. Please send any comments or questions to the list or if you wish to me directly. John = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com o) 609-377-6594 m) 484-962-0060 w) http://www.comcast6.net =
Re: NY Times on IPv4 depletion
+1 = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com o) 609-377-6594 m) 484-962-0060 w) http://www.comcast6.net = On 2/14/11 5:09 PM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 14, 2011 1:52 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: In message 4d597216.1030...@brightok.net, Jack Bates writes: On 2/14/2011 12:12 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote: Too bad the article pushes my mobile device to their mobile site mobile.nytimes.com and that references an ipv4 literal for the picture to load so not only is nytimes not ipv6 it is also broken for ipv6 only users behind nat64 That's almost as bad as the hundreds of subdomains used in webpages which sometimes hit broken load balancers (reporting nxdomain for ). Very few do that anymore. What they do however is return the wrong SOA record. So you have to check each and every domain in the source to find which ones are broken. Which one really shouldn't have to do. Add DS-Lite support to the phone and have the carriers advertise that they support DS-Lite and the IPv4 literal problem goes away. This has been done in a phone already so it is possible to do. Ds-lite has been dismissed by 3gpp. Nytimes needs to start using fqdns and ideally ipv6. Until then, it's their content that's being mangled. It is not reasonable for network operators to engineer for amateur web programming mistakes Cb Jack -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Comcast IPv6 Native Dual Stack Trials
Comcast Activates First Users With IPv6 Native Dual Stack Over DOCSIS http://blog.comcast.com/2011/01/comcast-activates-first-users-with-ipv6-nat ive-dual-stack-over-docsis.html John = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com o) 609-377-6594 m) 484-962-0060 w) http://www.comcast6.net =
Re: What's the current state of major access networks in North America ipv6 delivery status?
I am definitely *NOT* an advocate of NAT66 nor am I an advocate of further subneting a /64 into longer prefixes. Where additional IPv6 prefixes are required a prefix shorter than a /64 should be delegated. John = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com o) 609-377-6594 m) 484-962-0060 w) http://www.comcast6.net = On 1/27/11 7:56 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo carlosm3...@gmail.com wrote: Reading this thread, and building on many comments to a previous one, I definitely see the need for subnetting a /64 arising sooner than later. It might not be perfect, It might be ugly, but it will happen. And, if you ask me, I would rather subnet a /64 than end up with a ipv6 version of NAT, a much worse alternative. cheers, Carlos On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Brzozowski, John john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com wrote: In order to deploy /56 to end users would require an IPv6 /24 be dedicated to 6rd, /48s would require a dedicated IPv6 /16. This assumes an operator wants/needs to provide IPv6 via 6rd to end users where their IPv4 address is fully unique. There is quite a bit of IPv6 address space that does not gets utilized in this model. The routers we are using as part of the trials only support /64 as such we are using an IPv6 /32. It is also important that operators plan for the ability to delegate prefixes that are shorter than a /64. There are several cases that we have seen where the router can only make use of a /64. This is better than nothing when referring to legacy devices that have been able to introduce some support for IPv6 and would have otherwise been IPv4 only devices. John = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com o) 609-377-6594 m) 484-962-0060 w) http://www.comcast6.net = On 1/26/11 5:02 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Jan 26, 2011, at 1:52 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Is anyone tracking the major consumer/business class access networks delivery of ipv6 in North America? I'm on ATT DSL. It looks like they want to use 6rd? I've only briefly looked into 6rd. Is this a dead end path/giant hack? https://sites.google.com/site/ipv6implementors/2010/agenda/05_Chase_Goo gl econf-BroadbandtransitiontoIPv6using6rd.pdf?attredirects=0 It's a fairly ugly way to deliver IPv6, but, as transition technologies go, it's the least dead-end of the options. It at least provides essentially native dual stack environment. The only difference is that your IPv6 access is via a tunnel. You'll probably be limited to a /56 or less over 6rd, unfortunately, but, because of the awful way 6rd consumes addresses, handing out /48s would be utterly impractical. Free.fr stuck their customers with /60s, which is hopefully a very temporary situation. I spoke with impulse.net last year, which appears to serve large portions of the ATT cable plant in Southern California. They were willing to offer native ipv6. Not sure how (one /64, a /48) etc. You should definitely push your providers to give you a /48 if possible. If /56 or worse /60 or worst of all, /64 become widespread trends, it may significantly impact, delay, or even prevent innovations in the end-user networking/consumer electronics markets. Owen -- -- = Carlos M. Martinez-Cagnazzo http://www.labs.lacnic.net =
Re: What's the current state of major access networks in North America ipv6 delivery status?
Mark, Thanks for the insight, however, from an operators point of view one of the benefits of 6rd is the simplified deployment model. The statement below regarding how to explicitly provision 6rd CEs is some what inaccurate. This provisioning for some deployments of 6rd could carry some complexities which should not be trivialized. This really shouldn't be to hard for the provisioning systems to handle. There is an assumption being made that the entire DHCP infrastructure can support the transmission of 6rd DHCP options and can make those decisions per CE or subscriber. John = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com o) 609-377-6594 m) 484-962-0060 w) http://www.comcast6.net = On 1/27/11 9:03 AM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: In message c966c429.7fd46%john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com, Brzozowski, John wri tes: In order to deploy /56 to end users would require an IPv6 /24 be dedicated to 6rd, /48s would require a dedicated IPv6 /16. This assumes an operator wants/needs to provide IPv6 via 6rd to end users where their IPv4 address is fully unique. There is quite a bit of IPv6 address space that does not gets utilized in this model. No it doesn't require /16 to deploy 6rd with /48's. It does however require the ISP to do more than say this is our 6rd prefix and shove all 32 bits of IPv4 address into the delegated prefix. The moment the ISP needs to re-use IPv4 addresses for customers the simple this is our 6rd prefix fails to work. If an ISP has 34/8 and 35.0/9 then it needs two blocks of IPv6 addresses on a /24 and one a /25, which would be used like this: [P1 24 bits][low 24 bits][subnet 16 bits][host 64 bits] [P2 25 bits][low 23 bits][subnet 16 bits][host 64 bits] The 6rd routers for P1 know that P1 means the top 8 bits are 34. The 6rd routers for P2 know that P2 means the top 9 bits are 35.0. The DHCP server for subnets in 34/8 are configured to hand out 6rd prefix info for P1 (6rdPrefixLen=24, IPv4MaskLen=8). Similarly 35.0/9 and P2 (6rdPrefixLen=25, IPv4Masklen=9). This really shouldn't be to hard for the provisioning systems to handle. If the ISP was using 10/8 twice to connect to its customers then it would need two /24's (P1 and P2). P1 and P2 would both have 6rdPrefixLen=24, IPv4MaskLen=8. See RFC 5969 (RFC 5569 describes what Free originally did). The routers we are using as part of the trials only support /64 as such we are using an IPv6 /32. It is also important that operators plan for the ability to delegate prefixes that are shorter than a /64. There are several cases that we have seen where the router can only make use of a /64. This is better than nothing when referring to legacy devices that have been able to introduce some support for IPv6 and would have otherwise been IPv4 only devices. John =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com o) 609-377-6594 m) 484-962-0060 w) http://www.comcast6.net =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= 3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D On 1/26/11 5:02 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Jan 26, 2011, at 1:52 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 =20 =20 Is anyone tracking the major consumer/business class access networks delivery of ipv6 in North America? =20 I'm on ATT DSL. It looks like they want to use 6rd? I've only briefly looked into 6rd. Is this a dead end path/giant hack? =20 =20 https://sites.google.com/site/ipv6implementors/2010/agenda/05_Chase_Goo gl econf-BroadbandtransitiontoIPv6using6rd.pdf?attredirects=3D0 =20 It's a fairly ugly way to deliver IPv6, but, as transition technologies go, it's the least dead-end of the options. It at least provides essentially native dual stack environment. The only difference is that your IPv6 access is via a tunnel. You'll probably be limited to a /56 or less over 6rd, unfortunately, but, because of the awful way 6rd consumes addresses, handing out /48s would be utterly impractical. Free.fr stuck their customers with /60s, which is hopefully a very temporary situation. =20 I spoke with impulse.net last year, which appears to serve large portions of the ATT cable plant in Southern California. They were willing to offer native ipv6. Not sure how (one /64, a /48) etc. =20 You should definitely push your providers to give you a /48 if possible. If /56 or worse /60 or worst of all, /64 become widespread trends, it may significantly impact, delay, or even prevent innovations in the end-user networking/consumer electronics markets. Owen -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials Update
Did you check out IPv6 Essentials, 2nd edition by Siliva Hagen? John 609-377-6594 - Original Message - From: Brad Fleming bdflem...@kanren.net To: Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org Sent: Mon Mar 01 09:27:48 2010 Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials Update I found Migrating to IPv6: A practical guide to implementing IPv6 in mobile and fixed networks by Marc Blanchet very well written and worth the price of admission. ISBN: 978-0471-49892-6 -- Brad Fleming On Mar 1, 2010, at 8:21 AM, Curtis Maurand wrote: Can anyone recommend a decent book on IPV6? Most of what I find on the net don't explain things very well. thanks, Curtis On 2/28/2010 2:08 PM, John Jason Brzozowski wrote: Mike, Are you looking for something specific on www.comcast6.net? We will likely be making some content updates in the not too distant future and over time as the trials progress and evolve. If there is something specific you would like to see send me your suggestions. Thanks, John On 2/26/10 1:15 PM, Michael Grebmich...@thegrebs.com wrote: Received this message today. They haven't updated the http://www.comcast6.net/ site yet. Mike Begin forwarded message: An Important Message From Comcast Dear Comcast Customer, Thank you for volunteering to participate in Comcast's IPv6 trials! I wanted to provide you with a quick update on what our next steps are and when you can expect to hear from us again. As you know, we have four trials described at http://www.comcast6.net . We're in detailed planning on the first three: 6RD, plus native dual- stack for residential and for commercial customers. We expect each of these to start sometime within the next 90 days or so. 6RD Trial: We anticipate having customers from around our network, not limited to any specific areas, participate. We will start the trial on a very small scale and then progressively increase the number of participants. We plan to ship a new home gateway device to each trial participant. Residential Native Dual-Stack Trial: This trial will be limited to a few areas in our network. We are in the midst of determining precisely what those areas will be, based on where we have volunteers and where the infrastructure will be ready. If trial participants do not have an IPv6-capable home gateway and cable modem, one will be provided. Commercial Native Dual-Stack Trial: This trial will be limited to a few areas in our network. We have tentatively identified these trial areas and will soon be in touch with potential trial users. Within approximately the next 30 days we will begin to contact some of our volunteers regarding each of these trials, so expect to hear from us soon. Thanks again for your interest! Regards Jason Livingood Internet Systems Engineering Comcast = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com o) 609-377-6594 m) 484-962-0060 w) http://www.comcast6.net =
