[111630] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nathan Ward)
Mon Feb 9 17:40:03 2009
From: Nathan Ward <nanog@daork.net>
To: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <f1dedf9c0902091435n3d345c86o3382fd824c867e30@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:39:54 +1300
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 10/02/2009, at 11:35 AM, Scott Howard wrote:
> Go and ask those people who "feel statics are a given for IPv6" if
> they
> would prefer static or dynamic IPv4 addresses, and I suspect most/
> all of
> them will want the static there too. Now ask your average user the
> same
> question and see if you get the same answer.
I imagine there will be a difference - in my experience few people
understand the automatic renumbering that you can do with IPv6, so
think that static addressing is the only way forward.
With IPv4 this is not an issue, as they do not re-number internal
interfaces when their external IPv4 address changes.
--
Nathan Ward
