[128861] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: end-user ipv6 deployment and concerns about privacy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hannes Frederic Sowa)
Wed Aug 18 19:35:57 2010
In-Reply-To: <4C6C53A4.7060005@brightok.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 01:35:50 +0200
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@mailcolloid.de>
To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> 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.
Thanks. I will have a deeper look in the standards. This sounds like a
viable solution to me. Albeit, I wonder if there is a drive for the
big ISPs to implement such features.
