Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?

[Owen DeLong]

Send them another cake…

Owen


> On Mar 31, 2019, at 18:19 , Mike Leber  wrote:
> 
> The routes you see are Cogent using IPv6 leaks.
> 
> We chase these down as we see them.
> 
> Obviously if Cogent is happy enough to use leaks, we could just give
> them our IPv6 customer routes directly.  ;)
> 
> As a backbone operator, I'd prefer all routing we do (for at least the
> first hop leaving our network) to be intentional.  Perhaps they are the
> same?
> 
> Should I wait for to get an interesting email?  (haha)
> 
> Mike.
> 
> 
> On 3/31/19 6:10 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 6:07 PM Christopher Morrow
>>  wrote:
>>> thread subject still says 'google and he', I don't think there's ever
>>> been problems between google/he for v6.
>>> I think there are some issues from cogent - > he over v6 :(
>>> 
>>> Looking at a sample AS6939 customer link I see no:
>>>  ".* 174$"
>>>  ".* 174 .*$"
>>> 
>>> routes in the bgp stream :(
>>> 
>>> Looking at a AS174 customer link session I see no:
>>>  ".* 6939$"
>>>  ".* 6939 .*"
>>> 
>>> routes in the bgp stream :(
>> Apologies, I do actually see a path from 174 -> 6939 (well 28 paths):
>>  174  6939 
>> 
>> it's clearly not all of HE -> Cogent, and it's clearly not supposed to
>> be working (I would think).
>> -chris
>> 
>>> -chris
>>> 
> Matt
> 
 Ah.  Sorry, the changed subject line didn't thread in with this,
 so this showed up as an unreplied singleton in my inbox.
 
 Apologies for the duplicated response; at least this won't
 be a lonely singleton in anyone else's inbox now.  ^_^;
 
 Matt
 
> 

Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6

[Brandon Martin]

On 3/31/19 10:05 PM, Tom Beecher wrote:
I’m in Spectrum land, née Time Warner, née Rigas Cash Extraction 
Machine... errr Adelphia. ( Buffalo / WNY )


We’ve had native v6 for quite a few years up here.


Spectrum ex. Bright House/Time Warner varies by region.  NY region has 
had it, apparently.


Indianapolis has not, does not, and, from what I gather, will not (for a 
long time).


Apparently the regional operations of Bright House/TWC were very 
separated.  They had other significant policy differences, too, e.g. 
caps/overages, AUP differences (especially as enforced vs. as written), etc.

--
Brandon Martin

Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6

[Bryan Holloway]

I remember tapping the switch-hook to emulate pulse-dialing on 
touch-tone phones.


Few were impressed.


On 3/31/19 9:01 PM, Luke Guillory wrote:

My mom was cheap and only had pulse dialing in the 90s, it made using pagers 
difficult. Had to flip to tone after it dialed.



Ns

Sent from my iPad







On Mar 31, 2019, at 8:53 PM, Matt Hoppes  
wrote:


The telephone example:
What IS the benefit of DTMF other than I can dial faster?  None. And I can use 
IVRs. Again - no impact to me as a telephone company.

As far as ipv6. It’s been proven things “load faster” because the ipv6 servers 
of the various websites are not as heavily loaded as the ipv4 variants.

All things equal - ipv6 doesn’t load faster. There’s literally no advantage to 
ipv6 other than “I’m out of ipv4 and need to continue to provide public 
routable Ips to my customers. “


On Mar 31, 2019, at 9:42 PM, Mike Leber  wrote:

You are assuming the routing and transit relationships in IPv4 are the
same in IPv6.

IPv4 has many many many suboptimal transit relationships where routing
is purposely suboptimal on the part of the networks in the path due to
competitive reasons.  One example of suboptimal routing is traffic not
being exchanged in a closer location where both networks exist and
instead being routed hundreds or thousands of miles out of the way.

Customers don't get to influence the decisions of monopolies etc.

Customers choose based on inertia, brand experience, and what options
are even available to them to get IPv6 vs IPv4.

IPv6 has randomized some of these vendor relationships due to some
upstream networks not even implementing IPv6, meaning the downstream
networks were forced to make other choices.



On 3/31/19 6:21 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
It is not possible for web pages to load faster over IPv6 than over IPv4.  All other 
factors being equal, IPv6 has higher overhead than IPv4 for the same payload throughput.  
This means that it is physically impossible for IPv6 to be move payload bytes 
"faster" than IPv4 can move the same payload.

In other words, IPv6 has a higher "packet tax" than IPv4.  Since you have no choice but 
to pay the "packet tax" the actual payload data flows more slowly.

---
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.



-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ca By
Sent: Sunday, 31 March, 2019 18:53
To: Matt Hoppes
Cc: Aaron C. de Bruyn; NANOG mailing list
Subject: Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6



On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:20 PM Matt Hoppes
 wrote:


   Going to play devils advocate.

   If frontier has a ton of ipv4 addresses, what benefit is there
to them in rolling out ipv6?

   What benefit is there to you?


I love xbox and xbox works better on ipv6,

https://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/wed.general.palmer.xbox_.47
.pdf

Also, webpages load faster , and i love fast web pages

https://code.fb.com/networking-traffic/ipv6-it-s-time-to-get-on-
board/


https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/technical-
publication/a-case-for-faster-mobile-web-in-cellular-ipv6-
networks.pdf




   On Mar 31, 2019, at 7:11 PM, C. A. Fillekes
 wrote:




   Still it's pretty darn good having real broadband on the
farm.  One thing at a time.


   But, let's start thinking about ways to get Frontier up to
speed on the IPv6 thing.



   On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:24 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn
 wrote:


   You're not alone.

   I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and
they said "We will probably start looking into IPv6 next year".
   I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah,
everyone seems to be offering it.  I guess I'll have to start reading
how to implement it".

   I'm sure 2045 will finally be the year of IPv6
everywhere.

   -A

   On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:36 AM C. A. Fillekes
 wrote:



   So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS
at our farm.


   Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average.
Yay.


   It's a business account, Frontier.  But...still
no IPv6.


   The new router's capable of it.  What's the hold
up?


   Customer service's response is "We don't offer
that".

Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6

[Tom Beecher]

I’m in Spectrum land, née Time Warner, née Rigas Cash Extraction Machine...
errr Adelphia. ( Buffalo / WNY )

We’ve had native v6 for quite a few years up here.

On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 16:55 Seth Mattinen  wrote:

> On 3/31/19 13:31, David Hubbard wrote:
> > Things are no better in Spectrum land; gotta love the innovation in
> > monopoly markets….  I ask every year and expect it in perhaps thirty.
>
>
> It depends if you're Charter or Time Warner. Charter does.
>

Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6

[Luke Guillory]

My mom was cheap and only had pulse dialing in the 90s, it made using pagers 
difficult. Had to flip to tone after it dialed.



Ns

Sent from my iPad

>



On Mar 31, 2019, at 8:53 PM, Matt Hoppes  
wrote:
>
> The telephone example:
> What IS the benefit of DTMF other than I can dial faster?  None. And I can 
> use IVRs. Again - no impact to me as a telephone company.
>
> As far as ipv6. It’s been proven things “load faster” because the ipv6 
> servers of the various websites are not as heavily loaded as the ipv4 
> variants.
>
> All things equal - ipv6 doesn’t load faster. There’s literally no advantage 
> to ipv6 other than “I’m out of ipv4 and need to continue to provide public 
> routable Ips to my customers. “
>
>> On Mar 31, 2019, at 9:42 PM, Mike Leber  wrote:
>>
>> You are assuming the routing and transit relationships in IPv4 are the
>> same in IPv6.
>>
>> IPv4 has many many many suboptimal transit relationships where routing
>> is purposely suboptimal on the part of the networks in the path due to
>> competitive reasons.  One example of suboptimal routing is traffic not
>> being exchanged in a closer location where both networks exist and
>> instead being routed hundreds or thousands of miles out of the way.
>>
>> Customers don't get to influence the decisions of monopolies etc.
>>
>> Customers choose based on inertia, brand experience, and what options
>> are even available to them to get IPv6 vs IPv4.
>>
>> IPv6 has randomized some of these vendor relationships due to some
>> upstream networks not even implementing IPv6, meaning the downstream
>> networks were forced to make other choices.
>>
>>
>>> On 3/31/19 6:21 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
>>> It is not possible for web pages to load faster over IPv6 than over IPv4.  
>>> All other factors being equal, IPv6 has higher overhead than IPv4 for the 
>>> same payload throughput.  This means that it is physically impossible for 
>>> IPv6 to be move payload bytes "faster" than IPv4 can move the same payload.
>>>
>>> In other words, IPv6 has a higher "packet tax" than IPv4.  Since you have 
>>> no choice but to pay the "packet tax" the actual payload data flows more 
>>> slowly.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says 
>>> a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>>>
>>>
 -Original Message-
 From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ca By
 Sent: Sunday, 31 March, 2019 18:53
 To: Matt Hoppes
 Cc: Aaron C. de Bruyn; NANOG mailing list
 Subject: Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6



 On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:20 PM Matt Hoppes
  wrote:


   Going to play devils advocate.

   If frontier has a ton of ipv4 addresses, what benefit is there
 to them in rolling out ipv6?

   What benefit is there to you?


 I love xbox and xbox works better on ipv6,

 https://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/wed.general.palmer.xbox_.47
 .pdf

 Also, webpages load faster , and i love fast web pages

 https://code.fb.com/networking-traffic/ipv6-it-s-time-to-get-on-
 board/


 https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/technical-
 publication/a-case-for-faster-mobile-web-in-cellular-ipv6-
 networks.pdf




   On Mar 31, 2019, at 7:11 PM, C. A. Fillekes
  wrote:




   Still it's pretty darn good having real broadband on the
 farm.  One thing at a time.


   But, let's start thinking about ways to get Frontier up to
 speed on the IPv6 thing.



   On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:24 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn
  wrote:


   You're not alone.

   I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and
 they said "We will probably start looking into IPv6 next year".
   I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah,
 everyone seems to be offering it.  I guess I'll have to start reading
 how to implement it".

   I'm sure 2045 will finally be the year of IPv6
 everywhere.

   -A

   On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:36 AM C. A. Fillekes
  wrote:



   So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS
 at our farm.


   Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average.
 Yay.


   It's a business account, Frontier.  But...still
 no IPv6.


   The new router's capable of it.  What's the hold
 up?


   Customer service's response is "We don't offer
 that".





>>
>

Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?

[Matthew Petach]

On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 6:40 PM Jay Hennigan  wrote:

> Perhaps you should bake them a cake. :-)
>

The cake was delicious and moist

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mpetach/4031434206

"I'd like to buy a vowel.  Can I get an 'e', pleas?"  ^_^;;

Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6

[Matt Hoppes]

The telephone example:
What IS the benefit of DTMF other than I can dial faster?  None. And I can use 
IVRs. Again - no impact to me as a telephone company. 

As far as ipv6. It’s been proven things “load faster” because the ipv6 servers 
of the various websites are not as heavily loaded as the ipv4 variants. 

All things equal - ipv6 doesn’t load faster. There’s literally no advantage to 
ipv6 other than “I’m out of ipv4 and need to continue to provide public 
routable Ips to my customers. “

> On Mar 31, 2019, at 9:42 PM, Mike Leber  wrote:
> 
> You are assuming the routing and transit relationships in IPv4 are the
> same in IPv6.
> 
> IPv4 has many many many suboptimal transit relationships where routing
> is purposely suboptimal on the part of the networks in the path due to
> competitive reasons.  One example of suboptimal routing is traffic not
> being exchanged in a closer location where both networks exist and
> instead being routed hundreds or thousands of miles out of the way.
> 
> Customers don't get to influence the decisions of monopolies etc.
> 
> Customers choose based on inertia, brand experience, and what options
> are even available to them to get IPv6 vs IPv4.
> 
> IPv6 has randomized some of these vendor relationships due to some
> upstream networks not even implementing IPv6, meaning the downstream
> networks were forced to make other choices.
> 
> 
>> On 3/31/19 6:21 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
>> It is not possible for web pages to load faster over IPv6 than over IPv4.  
>> All other factors being equal, IPv6 has higher overhead than IPv4 for the 
>> same payload throughput.  This means that it is physically impossible for 
>> IPv6 to be move payload bytes "faster" than IPv4 can move the same payload.
>> 
>> In other words, IPv6 has a higher "packet tax" than IPv4.  Since you have no 
>> choice but to pay the "packet tax" the actual payload data flows more slowly.
>> 
>> ---
>> The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
>> lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>> 
>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ca By
>>> Sent: Sunday, 31 March, 2019 18:53
>>> To: Matt Hoppes
>>> Cc: Aaron C. de Bruyn; NANOG mailing list
>>> Subject: Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:20 PM Matt Hoppes
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>Going to play devils advocate.
>>> 
>>>If frontier has a ton of ipv4 addresses, what benefit is there
>>> to them in rolling out ipv6?
>>> 
>>>What benefit is there to you?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I love xbox and xbox works better on ipv6,
>>> 
>>> https://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/wed.general.palmer.xbox_.47
>>> .pdf
>>> 
>>> Also, webpages load faster , and i love fast web pages
>>> 
>>> https://code.fb.com/networking-traffic/ipv6-it-s-time-to-get-on-
>>> board/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/technical-
>>> publication/a-case-for-faster-mobile-web-in-cellular-ipv6-
>>> networks.pdf
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>On Mar 31, 2019, at 7:11 PM, C. A. Fillekes
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>Still it's pretty darn good having real broadband on the
>>> farm.  One thing at a time.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>But, let's start thinking about ways to get Frontier up to
>>> speed on the IPv6 thing.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:24 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>You're not alone.
>>> 
>>>I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and
>>> they said "We will probably start looking into IPv6 next year".
>>>I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah,
>>> everyone seems to be offering it.  I guess I'll have to start reading
>>> how to implement it".
>>> 
>>>I'm sure 2045 will finally be the year of IPv6
>>> everywhere.
>>> 
>>>-A
>>> 
>>>On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:36 AM C. A. Fillekes
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS
>>> at our farm.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average.
>>> Yay.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>It's a business account, Frontier.  But...still
>>> no IPv6.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>The new router's capable of it.  What's the hold
>>> up?
>>> 
>>> 
>>>Customer service's response is "We don't offer
>>> that".
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 

Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6

[Bryan Holloway]

Furthermore, NAT, prevalent with IPv4, adds latency. There is none with 
IPv6 (unless you're doing it wrong.)



On 3/31/19 8:42 PM, Mike Leber wrote:

You are assuming the routing and transit relationships in IPv4 are the
same in IPv6.

IPv4 has many many many suboptimal transit relationships where routing
is purposely suboptimal on the part of the networks in the path due to
competitive reasons.  One example of suboptimal routing is traffic not
being exchanged in a closer location where both networks exist and
instead being routed hundreds or thousands of miles out of the way.

Customers don't get to influence the decisions of monopolies etc.

Customers choose based on inertia, brand experience, and what options
are even available to them to get IPv6 vs IPv4.

IPv6 has randomized some of these vendor relationships due to some
upstream networks not even implementing IPv6, meaning the downstream
networks were forced to make other choices.


On 3/31/19 6:21 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote:

It is not possible for web pages to load faster over IPv6 than over IPv4.  All other 
factors being equal, IPv6 has higher overhead than IPv4 for the same payload throughput.  
This means that it is physically impossible for IPv6 to be move payload bytes 
"faster" than IPv4 can move the same payload.

In other words, IPv6 has a higher "packet tax" than IPv4.  Since you have no choice but 
to pay the "packet tax" the actual payload data flows more slowly.

---
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.



-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ca By
Sent: Sunday, 31 March, 2019 18:53
To: Matt Hoppes
Cc: Aaron C. de Bruyn; NANOG mailing list
Subject: Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6



On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:20 PM Matt Hoppes
 wrote:


Going to play devils advocate.

If frontier has a ton of ipv4 addresses, what benefit is there
to them in rolling out ipv6?

What benefit is there to you?


I love xbox and xbox works better on ipv6,

https://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/wed.general.palmer.xbox_.47
.pdf

Also, webpages load faster , and i love fast web pages

https://code.fb.com/networking-traffic/ipv6-it-s-time-to-get-on-
board/


https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/technical-
publication/a-case-for-faster-mobile-web-in-cellular-ipv6-
networks.pdf




On Mar 31, 2019, at 7:11 PM, C. A. Fillekes
 wrote:




Still it's pretty darn good having real broadband on the
farm.  One thing at a time.


But, let's start thinking about ways to get Frontier up to
speed on the IPv6 thing.



On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:24 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn
 wrote:


You're not alone.

I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and
they said "We will probably start looking into IPv6 next year".
I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah,
everyone seems to be offering it.  I guess I'll have to start reading
how to implement it".

I'm sure 2045 will finally be the year of IPv6
everywhere.

-A

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:36 AM C. A. Fillekes
 wrote:



So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS
at our farm.


Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average.
Yay.


It's a business account, Frontier.  But...still
no IPv6.


The new router's capable of it.  What's the hold
up?


Customer service's response is "We don't offer
that".

Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?

[Randy Bush]

> Are you saying that they refused to peer - and then failed at refusing? :)

luckily, none of the rest of us have bugs.  whew!

Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6

[Mike Leber]

You are assuming the routing and transit relationships in IPv4 are the
same in IPv6.

IPv4 has many many many suboptimal transit relationships where routing
is purposely suboptimal on the part of the networks in the path due to
competitive reasons.  One example of suboptimal routing is traffic not
being exchanged in a closer location where both networks exist and
instead being routed hundreds or thousands of miles out of the way.

Customers don't get to influence the decisions of monopolies etc.

Customers choose based on inertia, brand experience, and what options
are even available to them to get IPv6 vs IPv4.

IPv6 has randomized some of these vendor relationships due to some
upstream networks not even implementing IPv6, meaning the downstream
networks were forced to make other choices.


On 3/31/19 6:21 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
> It is not possible for web pages to load faster over IPv6 than over IPv4.  
> All other factors being equal, IPv6 has higher overhead than IPv4 for the 
> same payload throughput.  This means that it is physically impossible for 
> IPv6 to be move payload bytes "faster" than IPv4 can move the same payload.
>
> In other words, IPv6 has a higher "packet tax" than IPv4.  Since you have no 
> choice but to pay the "packet tax" the actual payload data flows more slowly.
>
> ---
> The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
> lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ca By
>> Sent: Sunday, 31 March, 2019 18:53
>> To: Matt Hoppes
>> Cc: Aaron C. de Bruyn; NANOG mailing list
>> Subject: Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:20 PM Matt Hoppes
>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>  Going to play devils advocate.
>>
>>  If frontier has a ton of ipv4 addresses, what benefit is there
>> to them in rolling out ipv6?
>>
>>  What benefit is there to you?
>>
>>
>> I love xbox and xbox works better on ipv6,
>>
>> https://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/wed.general.palmer.xbox_.47
>> .pdf
>>
>> Also, webpages load faster , and i love fast web pages
>>
>> https://code.fb.com/networking-traffic/ipv6-it-s-time-to-get-on-
>> board/
>>
>>
>> https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/technical-
>> publication/a-case-for-faster-mobile-web-in-cellular-ipv6-
>> networks.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  On Mar 31, 2019, at 7:11 PM, C. A. Fillekes
>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  Still it's pretty darn good having real broadband on the
>> farm.  One thing at a time.
>>
>>
>>  But, let's start thinking about ways to get Frontier up to
>> speed on the IPv6 thing.
>>
>>
>>
>>  On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:24 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn
>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>  You're not alone.
>>
>>  I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and
>> they said "We will probably start looking into IPv6 next year".
>>  I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah,
>> everyone seems to be offering it.  I guess I'll have to start reading
>> how to implement it".
>>
>>  I'm sure 2045 will finally be the year of IPv6
>> everywhere.
>>
>>  -A
>>
>>  On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:36 AM C. A. Fillekes
>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>  So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS
>> at our farm.
>>
>>
>>  Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average.
>> Yay.
>>
>>
>>  It's a business account, Frontier.  But...still
>> no IPv6.
>>
>>
>>  The new router's capable of it.  What's the hold
>> up?
>>
>>
>>  Customer service's response is "We don't offer
>> that".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?

[Jay Hennigan]

On 3/31/19 6:19 PM, Mike Leber wrote:

The routes you see are Cogent using IPv6 leaks.

We chase these down as we see them.

Obviously if Cogent is happy enough to use leaks, we could just give
them our IPv6 customer routes directly.  ;)

As a backbone operator, I'd prefer all routing we do (for at least the
first hop leaving our network) to be intentional.  Perhaps they are the
same?

Should I wait for to get an interesting email?  (haha)


Perhaps you should bake them a cake. :-)

--
Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
503 897-8550 - WB6RDV

Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?

[Bryan Holloway]

On 3/31/19 8:21 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:

On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 18:10:09 -0700, Christopher Morrow said:


Apologies, I do actually see a path from 174 -> 6939 (well 28 paths):
   174  6939 

it's clearly not all of HE -> Cogent, and it's clearly not supposed to
be working (I would think).


Wait, what?

Are you saying that they refused to peer - and then failed at refusing? :)



Let them eat cake.

RE: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6

[Keith Medcalf]

It is not possible for web pages to load faster over IPv6 than over IPv4.  All 
other factors being equal, IPv6 has higher overhead than IPv4 for the same 
payload throughput.  This means that it is physically impossible for IPv6 to be 
move payload bytes "faster" than IPv4 can move the same payload.

In other words, IPv6 has a higher "packet tax" than IPv4.  Since you have no 
choice but to pay the "packet tax" the actual payload data flows more slowly.

---
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.


>-Original Message-
>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ca By
>Sent: Sunday, 31 March, 2019 18:53
>To: Matt Hoppes
>Cc: Aaron C. de Bruyn; NANOG mailing list
>Subject: Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6
>
>
>
>On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:20 PM Matt Hoppes
> wrote:
>
>
>   Going to play devils advocate.
>
>   If frontier has a ton of ipv4 addresses, what benefit is there
>to them in rolling out ipv6?
>
>   What benefit is there to you?
>
>
>I love xbox and xbox works better on ipv6,
>
>https://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/wed.general.palmer.xbox_.47
>.pdf
>
>Also, webpages load faster , and i love fast web pages
>
>https://code.fb.com/networking-traffic/ipv6-it-s-time-to-get-on-
>board/
>
>
>https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/technical-
>publication/a-case-for-faster-mobile-web-in-cellular-ipv6-
>networks.pdf
>
>
>
>
>   On Mar 31, 2019, at 7:11 PM, C. A. Fillekes
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>   Still it's pretty darn good having real broadband on the
>farm.  One thing at a time.
>
>
>   But, let's start thinking about ways to get Frontier up to
>speed on the IPv6 thing.
>
>
>
>   On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:24 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn
> wrote:
>
>
>   You're not alone.
>
>   I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and
>they said "We will probably start looking into IPv6 next year".
>   I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah,
>everyone seems to be offering it.  I guess I'll have to start reading
>how to implement it".
>
>   I'm sure 2045 will finally be the year of IPv6
>everywhere.
>
>   -A
>
>   On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:36 AM C. A. Fillekes
> wrote:
>
>
>
>   So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS
>at our farm.
>
>
>   Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average.
>Yay.
>
>
>   It's a business account, Frontier.  But...still
>no IPv6.
>
>
>   The new router's capable of it.  What's the hold
>up?
>
>
>   Customer service's response is "We don't offer
>that".
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?

[Valdis Klētnieks]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 18:10:09 -0700, Christopher Morrow said:

> Apologies, I do actually see a path from 174 -> 6939 (well 28 paths):
>   174  6939 
>
> it's clearly not all of HE -> Cogent, and it's clearly not supposed to
> be working (I would think).

Wait, what?

Are you saying that they refused to peer - and then failed at refusing? :)

Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?

[Mike Leber]

The routes you see are Cogent using IPv6 leaks.

We chase these down as we see them.

Obviously if Cogent is happy enough to use leaks, we could just give
them our IPv6 customer routes directly.  ;)

As a backbone operator, I'd prefer all routing we do (for at least the
first hop leaving our network) to be intentional.  Perhaps they are the
same?

Should I wait for to get an interesting email?  (haha)

Mike.


On 3/31/19 6:10 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 6:07 PM Christopher Morrow
>  wrote:
>> thread subject still says 'google and he', I don't think there's ever
>> been problems between google/he for v6.
>> I think there are some issues from cogent - > he over v6 :(
>>
>> Looking at a sample AS6939 customer link I see no:
>>   ".* 174$"
>>   ".* 174 .*$"
>>
>> routes in the bgp stream :(
>>
>> Looking at a AS174 customer link session I see no:
>>   ".* 6939$"
>>   ".* 6939 .*"
>>
>> routes in the bgp stream :(
> Apologies, I do actually see a path from 174 -> 6939 (well 28 paths):
>   174  6939 
>
> it's clearly not all of HE -> Cogent, and it's clearly not supposed to
> be working (I would think).
> -chris
>
>> -chris
>>
 Matt

>>> Ah.  Sorry, the changed subject line didn't thread in with this,
>>> so this showed up as an unreplied singleton in my inbox.
>>>
>>> Apologies for the duplicated response; at least this won't
>>> be a lonely singleton in anyone else's inbox now.  ^_^;
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>

Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?

[Christopher Morrow]

On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 6:07 PM Christopher Morrow
 wrote:
>
> thread subject still says 'google and he', I don't think there's ever
> been problems between google/he for v6.
> I think there are some issues from cogent - > he over v6 :(
>
> Looking at a sample AS6939 customer link I see no:
>   ".* 174$"
>   ".* 174 .*$"
>
> routes in the bgp stream :(
>
> Looking at a AS174 customer link session I see no:
>   ".* 6939$"
>   ".* 6939 .*"
>
> routes in the bgp stream :(

Apologies, I do actually see a path from 174 -> 6939 (well 28 paths):
  174  6939 

it's clearly not all of HE -> Cogent, and it's clearly not supposed to
be working (I would think).
-chris

>
> -chris
>
> >>
> >> Matt
> >>
> >
> > Ah.  Sorry, the changed subject line didn't thread in with this,
> > so this showed up as an unreplied singleton in my inbox.
> >
> > Apologies for the duplicated response; at least this won't
> > be a lonely singleton in anyone else's inbox now.  ^_^;
> >
> > Matt
> >

Re: Did IPv6 between HE and Google ever get resolved?

[Christopher Morrow]

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 4:37 AM Matthew Petach  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 4:33 AM Matthew Petach  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 12:40 PM David Hubbard 
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hey all, I’ve been having bad luck searching around, but did IPv6 transit 
>>> between HE and google ever get resolved?  Ironically, I can now get to them 
>>> cheaply from a location we currently have equipment that has been 
>>> Cogent-only, so if it fixes the IPv6 issue I’d like to make the move.  
>>> Anyone peer with HE in general and want to share their experience offlist?  
>>> With the price, if they’re a good option, I’d consider rolling them in to 
>>> other locations where we have redundancy already, so the v6 isn’t as big a 
>>> deal there.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I wasn't aware of any issues between HE.net and Google;
>> are you sure you don't mean HE.net and Cogent?

thread subject still says 'google and he', I don't think there's ever
been problems between google/he for v6.
I think there are some issues from cogent - > he over v6 :(

Looking at a sample AS6939 customer link I see no:
  ".* 174$"
  ".* 174 .*$"

routes in the bgp stream :(

Looking at a AS174 customer link session I see no:
  ".* 6939$"
  ".* 6939 .*"

routes in the bgp stream :(

-chris

>>
>> Matt
>>
>
> Ah.  Sorry, the changed subject line didn't thread in with this,
> so this showed up as an unreplied singleton in my inbox.
>
> Apologies for the duplicated response; at least this won't
> be a lonely singleton in anyone else's inbox now.  ^_^;
>
> Matt
>

Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6

[Luke Guillory]

Telcos had an advantage, they were able to put the cost of that new fancy 
switch into our cost study / rate base.

So they were rewarded for spending money, and boy did they spend money.


Luke

Ns


Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 31, 2019, at 7:20 PM, Mike Leber mailto:mle...@he.net>> 
wrote:


You mean like pulse dialing and stepper relays vs touch tone dialing?

I'm sure there were people that felt the same about that too.

That mindset is simply you already paid for the old stuff, it's working fine, 
you would rather not understand or think about the problems the new tech solves 
or benefits it provides.

To be motivated to do something you have to have a reason or goal.

Most all goal seeking behavior in business can be put two buckets: 1) revenue 
at risk and 2) revenue enabled.

i.e. one is going away from pain and the other is going towards a reward.

Making a plan is based on your perception of current and future events.

At scale the market does a whole lot of testing of economic fitness functions 
that are the result of the decisions of each of our companies makes about what 
all of this means.

If you were an independent telephone company around 1955 to 1965 with relay 
based switches deciding when and if and why to use DTMF or a variant, I'm sure 
there was exactly the same dynamic.  Situation: telecom company with old 
technology that was still working trying to decide what to do.

I mean, your phones still worked on that day you were starting out the window 
musing about it.  Why not just go to lunch and forget about it?

While you were out to lunch after putting off deciding what to do about your 
relay switches around the same period of time the global phone system was 
growing at a breakneck speed and the first submarine transatlantic telephone 
cable system was getting run.

Some people won't like this story because it is about making business decisions 
about technology when you aren't sure of the reasons to either do or not do 
something and isn't arguing about some specific concrete reason to add IPv6 
support like: 1) the world has more people than IPv4 addresses or something 2) 
you work for a big company and would like your revenue from the Internet to 
keep growing over the next 10 years uninterrupted due the risk of not 
supporting IPv6 and this is too trivial of a technology decision because the 
incremental cost is so small (compared to all the other fires you have burning) 
to just add support anyway.  I get where you are coming from.

On 3/31/19 4:19 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
Going to play devils advocate.

If frontier has a ton of ipv4 addresses, what benefit is there to them in 
rolling out ipv6?

What benefit is there to you?

On Mar 31, 2019, at 7:11 PM, C. A. Fillekes 
mailto:cfille...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Still it's pretty darn good having real broadband on the farm.  One thing at a 
time.

But, let's start thinking about ways to get Frontier up to speed on the IPv6 
thing.





On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:24 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn 
mailto:aa...@heyaaron.com>> wrote:
You're not alone.

I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and they said "We will 
probably start looking into IPv6 next year".
I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah, everyone seems to be 
offering it.  I guess I'll have to start reading how to implement it".

I'm sure 2045 will finally be the year of IPv6 everywhere.

-A

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:36 AM C. A. Fillekes 
mailto:cfille...@gmail.com>> wrote:

So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS at our farm.

Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average.  Yay.

It's a business account, Frontier.  But...still no IPv6.

The new router's capable of it.  What's the hold up?

Customer service's response is "We don't offer that".

Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6

[Ca By]

On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:20 PM Matt Hoppes <
mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:

> Going to play devils advocate.
>
> If frontier has a ton of ipv4 addresses, what benefit is there to them in
> rolling out ipv6?
>
> What benefit is there to you?
>

I love xbox and xbox works better on ipv6,

https://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/wed.general.palmer.xbox_.47.pdf

Also, webpages load faster , and i love fast web pages

https://code.fb.com/networking-traffic/ipv6-it-s-time-to-get-on-board/


https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/technical-publication/a-case-for-faster-mobile-web-in-cellular-ipv6-networks.pdf



> On Mar 31, 2019, at 7:11 PM, C. A. Fillekes  wrote:
>
>
> Still it's pretty darn good having real broadband on the farm.  One thing
> at a time.
>
> But, let's start thinking about ways to get Frontier up to speed on the
> IPv6 thing.
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:24 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn 
> wrote:
>
>> You're not alone.
>>
>> I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and they said "We will
>> probably start looking into IPv6 next year".
>> I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah, everyone seems to be
>> offering it.  I guess I'll have to start reading how to implement it".
>>
>> I'm sure 2045 will finally be the year of IPv6 everywhere.
>>
>> -A
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:36 AM C. A. Fillekes 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS at our farm.
>>>
>>> Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average.  Yay.
>>>
>>> It's a business account, Frontier.  But...still no IPv6.
>>>
>>> The new router's capable of it.  What's the hold up?
>>>
>>> Customer service's response is "We don't offer that".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6

[Mike Leber]

You mean like pulse dialing and stepper relays vs touch tone dialing?

I'm sure there were people that felt the same about that too.

That mindset is simply you already paid for the old stuff, it's working
fine, you would rather not understand or think about the problems the
new tech solves or benefits it provides.

To be motivated to do something you have to have a reason or goal.

Most all goal seeking behavior in business can be put two buckets: 1)
revenue at risk and 2) revenue enabled.

i.e. one is going away from pain and the other is going towards a reward.

Making a plan is based on your perception of current and future events.

At scale the market does a whole lot of testing of economic fitness
functions that are the result of the decisions of each of our companies
makes about what all of this means.

If you were an independent telephone company around 1955 to 1965 with
relay based switches deciding when and if and why to use DTMF or a
variant, I'm sure there was exactly the same dynamic.  Situation:
telecom company with old technology that was still working trying to
decide what to do.

I mean, your phones still worked on that day you were starting out the
window musing about it.  Why not just go to lunch and forget about it?

While you were out to lunch after putting off deciding what to do about
your relay switches around the same period of time the global phone
system was growing at a breakneck speed and the first submarine
transatlantic telephone cable system was getting run.

Some people won't like this story because it is about making business
decisions about technology when you aren't sure of the reasons to either
do or not do something and isn't arguing about some specific concrete
reason to add IPv6 support like: 1) the world has more people than IPv4
addresses or something 2) you work for a big company and would like your
revenue from the Internet to keep growing over the next 10 years
uninterrupted due the risk of not supporting IPv6 and this is too
trivial of a technology decision because the incremental cost is so
small (compared to all the other fires you have burning) to just add
support anyway.  I get where you are coming from.


On 3/31/19 4:19 PM, Matt Hoppes wrote:
> Going to play devils advocate. 
>
> If frontier has a ton of ipv4 addresses, what benefit is there to them
> in rolling out ipv6?
>
> What benefit is there to you?
>
> On Mar 31, 2019, at 7:11 PM, C. A. Fillekes  > wrote:
>
>>
>> Still it's pretty darn good having real broadband on the farm.  One
>> thing at a time. 
>>
>> But, let's start thinking about ways to get Frontier up to speed on
>> the IPv6 thing.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:24 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn > > wrote:
>>
>> You're not alone.
>>
>> I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and they said
>> "We will probably start looking into IPv6 next year".
>> I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah, everyone seems
>> to be offering it.  I guess I'll have to start reading how to
>> implement it".
>>
>> I'm sure 2045 will finally be the year of IPv6 everywhere.
>>
>> -A
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:36 AM C. A. Fillekes
>> mailto:cfille...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS at our farm. 
>>
>> Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average.  Yay. 
>>
>> It's a business account, Frontier.  But...still no IPv6.
>>
>> The new router's capable of it.  What's the hold up? 
>>
>> Customer service's response is "We don't offer that".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6

[Matt Hoppes]

Going to play devils advocate. 

If frontier has a ton of ipv4 addresses, what benefit is there to them in 
rolling out ipv6?

What benefit is there to you?

> On Mar 31, 2019, at 7:11 PM, C. A. Fillekes  wrote:
> 
> 
> Still it's pretty darn good having real broadband on the farm.  One thing at 
> a time.  
> 
> But, let's start thinking about ways to get Frontier up to speed on the IPv6 
> thing. 
> 
> 
>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:24 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn  wrote:
>> You're not alone.
>> 
>> I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and they said "We will 
>> probably start looking into IPv6 next year".
>> I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah, everyone seems to be 
>> offering it.  I guess I'll have to start reading how to implement it".
>> 
>> I'm sure 2045 will finally be the year of IPv6 everywhere.
>> 
>> -A
>> 
>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:36 AM C. A. Fillekes  wrote:
>>> 
>>> So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS at our farm.  
>>> 
>>> Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average.  Yay.  
>>> 
>>> It's a business account, Frontier.  But...still no IPv6. 
>>> 
>>> The new router's capable of it.  What's the hold up?  
>>> 
>>> Customer service's response is "We don't offer that".
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 

Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6

[C. A. Fillekes]

Still it's pretty darn good having real broadband on the farm.  One thing
at a time.

But, let's start thinking about ways to get Frontier up to speed on the
IPv6 thing.


On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 4:24 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn 
wrote:

> You're not alone.
>
> I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and they said "We will
> probably start looking into IPv6 next year".
> I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah, everyone seems to be
> offering it.  I guess I'll have to start reading how to implement it".
>
> I'm sure 2045 will finally be the year of IPv6 everywhere.
>
> -A
>
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:36 AM C. A. Fillekes 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS at our farm.
>>
>> Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average.  Yay.
>>
>> It's a business account, Frontier.  But...still no IPv6.
>>
>> The new router's capable of it.  What's the hold up?
>>
>> Customer service's response is "We don't offer that".
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6

[Seth Mattinen]

On 3/31/19 13:31, David Hubbard wrote:
Things are no better in Spectrum land; gotta love the innovation in 
monopoly markets….  I ask every year and expect it in perhaps thirty.



It depends if you're Charter or Time Warner. Charter does.

Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6

[Randy Carpenter]

FWIW, I have had IPv6 for many years on my Spectrum (formerly Time Warner) 
connection at home. I think it was ~2012 or so. On our company fiber 
connection, it has been since ~2010, maybe a little earlier. Granted it took a 
little pressure and I’m sure were were the first IPv6 business customer in our 
area.

-Randy

> On Mar 31, 2019, at 16:32, David Hubbard  
> wrote:
> 
> Things are no better in Spectrum land; gotta love the innovation in monopoly 
> markets….  I ask every year and expect it in perhaps thirty.
>  
> From: NANOG  on behalf of "Aaron C. de Bruyn via 
> NANOG" 
> Reply-To: "Aaron C. de Bruyn" 
> Date: Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 4:26 PM
> To: "C. A. Fillekes" 
> Cc: NANOG mailing list 
> Subject: Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6
>  
> You're not alone.
>  
> I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and they said "We will 
> probably start looking into IPv6 next year".
> I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah, everyone seems to be 
> offering it.  I guess I'll have to start reading how to implement it".
>  
> I'm sure 2045 will finally be the year of IPv6 everywhere.
>  
> -A
>  
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:36 AM C. A. Fillekes  wrote:
>  
> So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS at our farm. 
>  
> Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average.  Yay. 
>  
> It's a business account, Frontier.  But...still no IPv6.
>  
> The new router's capable of it.  What's the hold up? 
>  
> Customer service's response is "We don't offer that".
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  

Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6

[David Hubbard]

Things are no better in Spectrum land; gotta love the innovation in monopoly 
markets….  I ask every year and expect it in perhaps thirty.

From: NANOG  on behalf of "Aaron C. de Bruyn via 
NANOG" 
Reply-To: "Aaron C. de Bruyn" 
Date: Sunday, March 31, 2019 at 4:26 PM
To: "C. A. Fillekes" 
Cc: NANOG mailing list 
Subject: Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6

You're not alone.

I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and they said "We will 
probably start looking into IPv6 next year".
I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah, everyone seems to be 
offering it.  I guess I'll have to start reading how to implement it".

I'm sure 2045 will finally be the year of IPv6 everywhere.

-A

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:36 AM C. A. Fillekes 
mailto:cfille...@gmail.com>> wrote:

So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS at our farm.

Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average.  Yay.

It's a business account, Frontier.  But...still no IPv6.

The new router's capable of it.  What's the hold up?

Customer service's response is "We don't offer that".

Re: Frontier rural FIOS & IPv6

[Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG]

You're not alone.

I talked with my local provider about 4 years ago and they said "We will
probably start looking into IPv6 next year".
I talked with them last month and they said "Yeah, everyone seems to be
offering it.  I guess I'll have to start reading how to implement it".

I'm sure 2045 will finally be the year of IPv6 everywhere.

-A

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 7:36 AM C. A. Fillekes  wrote:

>
> So by COB yesterday we now officially have FIOS at our farm.
>
> Went from 3Mbps to around 30 measured average.  Yay.
>
> It's a business account, Frontier.  But...still no IPv6.
>
> The new router's capable of it.  What's the hold up?
>
> Customer service's response is "We don't offer that".
>
>
>
>
>
>