I need help forming a class-action against AT&T (IPv6 rights)

I demand my /56

This class-action will be in two parts:

  1. AT&T doesn't have an escalation process to take responsibility for their customer premise equipment. If at the end of the call to tech support regarding a bug in the behavior of their CPE, you are forwarded to their pay-per-incident support for which you pay $59.95 for them to forward you back to the same tech support call center.

  2. The two CPE options for GPON fiber was the BGW210 and the current BGW320. Both contain broken behavior with the DHCPv6 server offered to the pass-thru third-party router. For any request of a prefix delegation length, a /64 is returned. As a /64 only represents a single address block, it is useless for subnetting. The best-practices recommendation is to offer a /56 (256 address blocks) for residential service.

2 Likes

Their shit is broke IPv6 Prefix Delegation

I'm wondering if we shouldn't write text for proposed legislation for ipv6 consumer rights. I note you're also in California. Perhaps that's a good starting direction or a parallel track.

3 Likes

Proposed legislation is a great idea. For me, that would be a visit to CA State Rep. Nancy Skinner's office. I've never done anything like this before. Exciting. At least their office could help me get in touch with the public utilities council for filing a complaint against AT&T

First volley served! I filed this with Nancy Skinner's office. I hope they get back in touch with me

"Consumer rights. The product sold by AT&T, network ISP services, is
deficient according to the IETF recommended practices for the assignment
of end-user prefixes. This "delegated prefix" is supposed to contain
256 blocks. AT&T is only giving me a single block which is restricting
my ability to configure my local area network"

3 Likes

Filing a complaint seems to be easy
File A Complaint

1 Like

I support your cause, but have a read of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6177 where the IETF muddies the waters a bit about the size of the prefix delegation, but they still recommend:
"- it should be easy for an end site to obtain address space to
number multiple subnets (i.e., a block larger than a single /64)
and to support reasonable growth projections over long time
periods (e.g., a decade or more)."

they offer a few more recommendations (like maintaining nibble boundaries), but it removes the older recommendation for a /48...

1 Like

Why all the fuss about making it smaller than /48? There's plenty of space just in the 2000::/3 allocation alone to give 5000 /48s to everyone alive on the planet

2 Likes

Well, read rfc6177 for some vague details... my point just is if you drag in the IETF (and you should) make sure to use the most recent version RFC discussing the matter :wink:
Personally, I see no reason for not giving a /48 (but then, I think, if an ISP would only give a /64 I would simply try to subnet that myself.... bye bye android devices :wink: ). But then my opinion is completely irrelevant for a Californian legislator, so I am going to stop now...

if I were going to write legislation it would say something like:

"No entity providing internet access to the public may operate unless they offer IPv6 connectivity. All such entities must either provide a static un-changing prefix of 56 bits or provide a discoverable prefix through DHCP-PD of 56 bits with a lease time of no less than 31536000 seconds (365 days). Entities must provide a 48 bit prefix either as static or with the same lease time at the request of any customer."

Or thereabouts.

1 Like

Thanks for the pointer to the relevant RFC

1 Like

I just sent this to the EFF.

I would like to chat with you about a problem I'm having with AT&T's
internet service. This is about consumer rights regarding their
restriction of IPv6 addresses. They are not giving me a proper
"delegated prefix"

According the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), they should
be offering a prefix length of /56 that contains 256 blocks to
residential customers. They are giving me a /64 which only
contains a single address block. It is useless for subnetting on my
LAN. IPv6 was supposed to solve this.

I think this needs legislation. I demand my /56

I buy my IP by the year so that makes sense for me.
But if you are paying by the month to your ISP, then a lease should not last past your bill so you can't stiff them. Requiring them to give you access for a year when you stop paying after a month is dumb. So expect commifornia to do it that way.
Now to register mindless.riots domain and make a killing. :wink:

Wth? The DHCP lease is not the same thing as an apartment lease, it just means the ISP can't invalidate the prefix before 1 year. It has nothing to do with whether they can turn off your service because you're not paying.

1 Like

You have to read the bill as the loons on the 9th circus will "interpret" them.
and I will point out people have NOT been paying their rent either and not getting kicked out.
I prefer small unix ISP's. You can deal with the owners in person to resolve problems. My fixed IP block is in the contract.

Agree with the top 2 complaints.

ya, and they forced their DNS to monitor traffic.

2 Likes

If you live in California and are an AT&T customer, please file a complaint with the CPUC. It works. I spoke with a case manager and a technical liaison yesterday. And I just got a letter in mail from the CPUC about my case today.

Please use something like this in the complaint details section:

The two CPE options for GPON fiber was the BGW210 and the current BGW320. Both contain broken behavior with the DHCPv6 server offered to a pass-thru third-party router. For any request of an IPv6 prefix delegation length, a /64 is returned. According the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-690#4-2-3--prefixes--longer-than--56, you should be offering a prefix length of /56 that contains 256 blocks to residential customers. You are giving me a /64 which only contains a single address block. It is useless for subnetting on my LAN. I do not want my security cameras on the same network section as my guest wifi. IPv6 was supposed to solve this. I demand my /56

RIPE != ARIN, though, ripe is the European counter part of ARIN. I guess your point still stands, but IMHO precision matters, as otherwise this leaves cheap points to be scored by the other side....

2 Likes

The technical documents on ARIN point to the ones hosted by RIPE. Precision matters. Look it up yourself

Look, that might be true for the ARIN website (but since you posted no link to the ARIN webpage it was certainly not obvious), but in your proposed write-up that relationship is completely lost, what is clear however is that reported source and link location do differ significantly.
But it seems I am bike-shedding here and since it is your shed, I will try to keep out of this thread.