[131717] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 - Unique local addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Smith)
Tue Nov 2 06:13:11 2010
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 20:42:56 +1030
From: Mark Smith <nanog@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
To: Ben Jencks <ben@bjencks.net>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinSwcgAVq-KwhS5dxJ+ot8+atkMwUNEYgZTX1ge@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, 2 Nov 2010 01:24:45 -0400
Ben Jencks <ben@bjencks.net> wrote:
> 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 Pleas=
e elaborate.
> >
> > Currently, most residential customers have PA+NATv4, where the CPE prov=
ides 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=
from all renumbering events. =C2=A0In a NATless PA world, all devices will=
need to be renumbered on a change of provider. =C2=A0While in theory, addr=
ess lifetimes and multiple addresses should reduce the impact renumbering m=
ight have, I will admit some skepticism that renumbering IPv6 providers wil=
l be sufficiently transparent as customers are used to with IPv4 PA+NATv4. =
Perhaps I am wrong.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
+1
> -Ben
>=20
