[130969] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Franck Martin)
Mon Oct 18 16:51:29 2010
X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: franck@genius.com
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 08:51:06 +1200 (FJT)
From: Franck Martin <franck@genius.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <4CBCA9BB.8000202@brightok.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
So they can't run their own services from home and have to request premium connectivity from you?
Beside the IPv4 scarcity mentality we have the Telco mentality to fight...
Happy days still ahead...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Bates" <jbates@brightok.net>
To: sthaug@nethelp.no
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, 19 October, 2010 8:10:35 AM
Subject: Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
On 10/18/2010 1:20 PM, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:
>
> I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need
> /48s. No, I don't think "that makes all the address assignments the
> same size" is a particularly relevant or convincing argument.
>
> We're doing /56 for residential users, and have no plans to change
> this.
+1
This not only makes pop assignments easier, it gives a much larger
prefix rotation pool. Don't start the flame on rotating prefixes being
evil. It's my implementation to at least give customers some chance at
prefix privacy.
Jack
