[131009] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lee)
Tue Oct 19 07:30:13 2010
In-Reply-To: <3699102B-01D5-40CA-83F9-FA3072B8E810@delong.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 07:30:00 -0400
From: Lee <ler762@gmail.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 10/19/10, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 18, 2010, at 1:10 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> What if your customers don't want prefix privacy and prefer, instead, to
> have the option of accessing their resources remotely, setting up mobile-IP
> home gateways, and any of the other functions that come from static
> prefixes?
Why does it have to be one or the other? Isn't it possible to hand
out a static assignment so that users can access their resources
remotely as well as handing out a rotating prefix that changes every
so often so that users have 'some chance at prefix privacy.'
Lee
