[130972] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Mon Oct 18 17:12:22 2010
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 16:12:04 -0500
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: Franck Martin <franck@genius.com>
In-Reply-To: <3041529.15.1287435062708.JavaMail.franck@franck-martins-macbook-pro.local>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 10/18/2010 3:51 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> 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...
>
Of course they can run their own services at home. How does renumber
effect that (outside of poor v6 implementations at this late stage)?
v6 is designed to support multiple prefixes and the ability to change
from one prefix to another with limited disruption, especially if I give
24 hours to complete the transition.
If servers and services can't handle this, I'd say they need to improve,
or the customer will need a static allocation, which we may or may not
charge for (depending on how automated we make it).
A sane default of rotation is appropriate for us, though, and no amount
of fighting by anyone will make the Telco think that google or others
have the right to track their users. It's unfair for our users who block
cookies, do due diligence to not be tracked, and then we throw them to
the wolves with a constant trackable prefix.
Jack (knew this would start an argument. *sigh*)
