[111378] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Wed Feb 4 21:19:19 2009
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 21:19:07 -0500
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
To: Anthony Roberts <nanog@arbitraryconstant.com>, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Anthony Roberts <nanog@arbitraryconstant.com>,
NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <498A40C1.8060702@internode.com.au>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--SUOF0GtieIMvvwua
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message written on Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 11:58:33AM +1030, Matthew Moyl=
e-Croft wrote:
> My FEAR is that people ("customers") are going to start assuming that v6=
=20
> means their own static allocation (quite a number are assuming this). =
=20
> This means that I have a problem with routing table size etc if I have=20
> to implement that.
Customers don't want static addresses.
They want DNS that works, with their own domain names, forward and
reverse.
They want renumbering events to be infrequent, and announced in
advance.
They want the box the cable/dsl/fios provider to actually work,
that is be able to do really simple stuff without having to buy
another stupid box to put behind it.
None of these require static, and in fact I'd think it would be
easier to get it right than it would be to do statics for most
providers. But, I must be wrong, since the only solution virtually
every provider offers is to "move up" to "a static IP".
--=20
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
--SUOF0GtieIMvvwua
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFJikyaNh6mMG5yMTYRApFSAKCAusImezR5t0N8+9X/zMpyF/2LzACfUBdv
4ELGoLILjgIRNmQx49s774g=
=gnzc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--SUOF0GtieIMvvwua--
