[131715] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ben Jencks)
Tue Nov 2 01:24:52 2010
In-Reply-To: <0BAECC0E-139C-4884-B5BC-BA2DD1985B2C@virtualized.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 01:24:45 -0400
From: Ben Jencks <ben@bjencks.net>
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 00:58, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
> On Nov 1, 2010, at 6:42 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
>>> My guess is that the millions of residential users will be less and
>>> less enthused with (pure) PA each time they change service providers...
>> That claim seems to be unsupported by current experience. =C2=A0 Please =
elaborate.
>
> Currently, most residential customers have PA+NATv4, where the CPE provid=
es the public IPv4 address to the NATv4 box (which might be the same box as=
the CPE) via DHCP (or PPPoE). As such, all internal devices are shielded f=
rom all renumbering events. =C2=A0In a NATless PA world, all devices will n=
eed to be renumbered on a change of provider. =C2=A0While in theory, addres=
s lifetimes and multiple addresses should reduce the impact renumbering mig=
ht have, I will admit some skepticism that renumbering IPv6 providers will =
be sufficiently transparent as customers are used to with IPv4 PA+NATv4. Pe=
rhaps I am wrong.
No "average residential user" should ever see or configure an IPv6
address; all the vendors are using zeroconf etc. to avoid it at all
costs. If it was all autoconfigured in the first place, there's no
reason autoconfiguration shouldn't be able to renumber it.
-Ben
