5 ms·

It would be nice if Verizon was interested in providing IPv6 access via their Fios service at all in 2021.

by brirec 5y ago

sodality2 5y ago
This user says they have IPV6 with FiOS: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27985103 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27985103 I have FiOS as well and I'm only a few miles from them. I attempted to get IPV6 from the router settings and it didn't work for me.
Ericson2314 5y ago
It would be nice to see this forced by law.
- jiggawatts 5y ago
  It should be as simple as not being allowed to advertise a service as providing Internet unless it provides 100% native, full-featured IPv6. Imagine if in 2001 some company tried to sell an "Internet service" that didn't provide IPv4, or only provided RFC1918 addresses, or didn't allow something as trivial as non-NAT routing of IPv4, even as an option. They'd be sued for false advertising, and rightly so. Meanwhile, in 2021 tier-1 cloud providers like Azure have an absolute shitshow of partial IPv6 support, yet they get away with advertising that they provide "Internet connectivity". They provide only private ranges, and force NAT for all IPv6 traffic. The vast majority of their services are IPv4 only, so enabling IPv6 is mostly pointless. Worse, if you do enable IPv6 on their virtual networks, this then disables unrelated IPv4 functionality. It's madness.
  - aoetalks 5y ago
    I run a full dual stack service in Azure [1]. I couldn’t get instance level IPv6 working, but everything else works in both v4 and v6. I will echo that many Azure services don’t support v6 yet, though. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-network/ipv6-overview https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-network/ipv6-...
    - jiggawatts 5y ago
      Microsoft voluntarily admits the following limitations on the page you linked: • ExpressRoute gateways CAN be used for IPv4-only traffic in a VNET with IPv6 enabled. Support for IPv6 traffic is on our roadmap. • VPN gateways CANNOT be used in a VNET with IPv6 enabled, either directly or peered with "UseRemoteGateway". • The Azure platform (AKS, etc.) does not support IPv6 communication for Containers. • IPv6-only Virtual Machines or Virtual Machines Scale Sets are not supported, each NIC must include at least one IPv4 IP configuration. • When adding IPv6 to existing IPv4 deployments, IPv6 ranges can not be added to a VNET with existing resource navigation links. • Forward DNS for IPv6 is supported for Azure public DNS today but Reverse DNS is not yet supported. That doesn't even being to cover it! There's all sorts of other fun limitations scattered all over the place, you'd have to spend weeks scraping them together into a pile of shame. Examples include: • The maximum prefix IPv6 prefix size available is just 16 addresses, which is hilariously tiny and totally negates the core benefit of IPv6's huge address space: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-network/public-ip-address-prefix#prefix-sizes https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-network/publi... • Forced NAT of IPv6, which entirely defeats the purpose and benefit of this protocol over IPv4. • NAT doesn't interact with IPv6 address family. NAT can't be deployed on a subnet with an IPv6 prefix. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-network/nat-gateway/nat-gateway-resource#limitations https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-network/nat-g... • If you add an IPv6 address to a rule, [Azure] firewall fails. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/firewall/overview#known-issues https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/firewall/overview#kno... • None of their PaaS services support IPv6 firewall rules. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/40461803/allow-ipv6-address-in-azure-firewall https://stackoverflow.com/questions/40461803/allow-ipv6-addr... Etc, etc, etc...
  - notatoad 5y ago
    >as simple as not being allowed to advertise a service as providing Internet so then they'll advertise "network connection service" or something instead of internet service. people are pretty willing to accept when marketing makes up new words to avoid regulation, as long as the they are still getting a product that meets their needs. if consumers don't care about ipv6, no amount of renaming things is going to change that. if you really want to drive ipv6 adoption, find a way to get free porn on it.
- Proven 5y ago
  IT Taliban
- roenxi 5y ago
  That is a bad idea. 1) Further entrenches the big players by making it harder to enter the market. 2) Making decisions for companies with no understanding of the costs is a bad strategy. If it was easy to support they'd just do it. 3) It is still arguable if IPv6 is even necessary. I think yes, but the situation isn't clear enough to legislate. Maybe some better solution will be found when the pressure is on.
  - Ericson2314 5y ago
    I strongly disagree > Further entrenches the big players by making it harder to enter the market. On the contrary, I think dual stack from the ground up is cheap. Big corps are reluctant to switch because it means paying the "interest" in their tech debt. > Making decisions for companies with no understanding of the costs is a bad strategy. If it was easy to support they'd just do it. Who said we don't understand the costs? You are underestimating the stringiness of the bean counters that got us into this coordination failure. You are also assuming the aggregate demand for abstract public goods like IPv6 availability could ever be sufficient in already-developed countries for market-based solutions to work. > It is still arguable if IPv6 is even necessary. I think yes, but the situation isn't clear enough to legislate. Maybe some better solution will be found when the pressure is on. IPv6 is necessary for a bunch of decentralization to work better. Thks isn't good for profits (no, "crypto" isn't the decentralization I have in mind), but it is good for society. This is clear to me, but the exact sort of abstract thing which is hard to put political weight behind.

It would be nice if Verizon was interested in providing IPv6 access via their Fios service at all in 2021.

by brirec 5y ago

It would be nice if Verizon was interested in providing IPv6 access via their Fios service at all in 2021.

This user says they have IPV6 with FiOS: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27985103 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27985103 I have FiOS as well and I'm only a few miles from them. I attempted to get IPV6 from the router settings and it didn't work for me.

Ericson2314 5y ago

It would be nice to see this forced by law.

jiggawatts 5y ago
It should be as simple as not being allowed to advertise a service as providing Internet unless it provides 100% native, full-featured IPv6. Imagine if in 2001 some company tried to sell an "Internet service" that didn't provide IPv4, or only provided RFC1918 addresses, or didn't allow something as trivial as non-NAT routing of IPv4, even as an option. They'd be sued for false advertising, and rightly so. Meanwhile, in 2021 tier-1 cloud providers like Azure have an absolute shitshow of partial IPv6 support, yet they get away with advertising that they provide "Internet connectivity". They provide only private ranges, and force NAT for all IPv6 traffic. The vast majority of their services are IPv4 only, so enabling IPv6 is mostly pointless. Worse, if you do enable IPv6 on their virtual networks, this then disables unrelated IPv4 functionality. It's madness.
- aoetalks 5y ago
  I run a full dual stack service in Azure [1]. I couldn’t get instance level IPv6 working, but everything else works in both v4 and v6. I will echo that many Azure services don’t support v6 yet, though. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-network/ipv6-overview https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-network/ipv6-...
  - jiggawatts 5y ago
    Microsoft voluntarily admits the following limitations on the page you linked: • ExpressRoute gateways CAN be used for IPv4-only traffic in a VNET with IPv6 enabled. Support for IPv6 traffic is on our roadmap. • VPN gateways CANNOT be used in a VNET with IPv6 enabled, either directly or peered with "UseRemoteGateway". • The Azure platform (AKS, etc.) does not support IPv6 communication for Containers. • IPv6-only Virtual Machines or Virtual Machines Scale Sets are not supported, each NIC must include at least one IPv4 IP configuration. • When adding IPv6 to existing IPv4 deployments, IPv6 ranges can not be added to a VNET with existing resource navigation links. • Forward DNS for IPv6 is supported for Azure public DNS today but Reverse DNS is not yet supported. That doesn't even being to cover it! There's all sorts of other fun limitations scattered all over the place, you'd have to spend weeks scraping them together into a pile of shame. Examples include: • The maximum prefix IPv6 prefix size available is just 16 addresses, which is hilariously tiny and totally negates the core benefit of IPv6's huge address space: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-network/public-ip-address-prefix#prefix-sizes https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-network/publi... • Forced NAT of IPv6, which entirely defeats the purpose and benefit of this protocol over IPv4. • NAT doesn't interact with IPv6 address family. NAT can't be deployed on a subnet with an IPv6 prefix. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-network/nat-gateway/nat-gateway-resource#limitations https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-network/nat-g... • If you add an IPv6 address to a rule, [Azure] firewall fails. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/firewall/overview#known-issues https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/firewall/overview#kno... • None of their PaaS services support IPv6 firewall rules. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/40461803/allow-ipv6-address-in-azure-firewall https://stackoverflow.com/questions/40461803/allow-ipv6-addr... Etc, etc, etc...
- notatoad 5y ago
  >as simple as not being allowed to advertise a service as providing Internet so then they'll advertise "network connection service" or something instead of internet service. people are pretty willing to accept when marketing makes up new words to avoid regulation, as long as the they are still getting a product that meets their needs. if consumers don't care about ipv6, no amount of renaming things is going to change that. if you really want to drive ipv6 adoption, find a way to get free porn on it.
Proven 5y ago
IT Taliban
roenxi 5y ago
That is a bad idea. 1) Further entrenches the big players by making it harder to enter the market. 2) Making decisions for companies with no understanding of the costs is a bad strategy. If it was easy to support they'd just do it. 3) It is still arguable if IPv6 is even necessary. I think yes, but the situation isn't clear enough to legislate. Maybe some better solution will be found when the pressure is on.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  I strongly disagree > Further entrenches the big players by making it harder to enter the market. On the contrary, I think dual stack from the ground up is cheap. Big corps are reluctant to switch because it means paying the "interest" in their tech debt. > Making decisions for companies with no understanding of the costs is a bad strategy. If it was easy to support they'd just do it. Who said we don't understand the costs? You are underestimating the stringiness of the bean counters that got us into this coordination failure. You are also assuming the aggregate demand for abstract public goods like IPv6 availability could ever be sufficient in already-developed countries for market-based solutions to work. > It is still arguable if IPv6 is even necessary. I think yes, but the situation isn't clear enough to legislate. Maybe some better solution will be found when the pressure is on. IPv6 is necessary for a bunch of decentralization to work better. Thks isn't good for profits (no, "crypto" isn't the decentralization I have in mind), but it is good for society. This is clear to me, but the exact sort of abstract thing which is hard to put political weight behind.