[128858] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: end-user ipv6 deployment and concerns about privacy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Wed Aug 18 17:46:10 2010
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:41:56 -0500
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@mailcolloid.de>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinc5zqVmAkpU8_sGgAZeVaK_1sGb6YLZwe+jom_@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> the other one will be dynamically allocated. I have no clue how the
> user would switch between these subnets (without using some kind of
> command line tools).
Web portals work fine, and honestly, it's not like you need to switch
subnets, either. PPPoE/A implementations work great, as they are already
designed to utilize radius backends to quickly alter static/dynamic on a
session. For bridging setups, you have a variety of implementations and
it becomes messier. Cisco, while maintaining RBE did away with the
concept of proxy-nd, and didn't provide a mechanism for dynamically
allocating the prefixes to the unnumbered interface. If you use dslam
level controls, you'll most likely being using DHCPv6 TA addressing with
PD on top of it, which works well. Most of which can support quick
static/dynamic capabilities as it does with v4.
Jack
