[111453] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Thu Feb 5 21:48:39 2009
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:48:24 -0600
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: George William Herbert <gherbert@retro.com>
In-Reply-To: <200902060140.n161eRCr009271@kw.retro.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
George William Herbert wrote:
<snip beautiful post>
> Perhaps there are better ways to do all of this from the start.
> But IPv6 is not helping any of the ways we have evolved to deal
> with it.
>
<snip great ending>
IPv6 does just fine with dynamic addressing and with static addressing.
I'm not sure what your problem is. An ISP can still assign static
addressing, and in fact, most ISP layouts will be *more* static than
they were with IPv4. However, it will depend on their implementations
and what they want.
As was explained to me, there were many BIG providers definitely putting
their $0.02 in concerning IPv6. That's actually where full blown IPv6
comes in, btw. Something to do with DOCSIS from what I understand;
though that's way out of the scope of my telco self. I play with copper.
Jack
