[143023] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Jul 26 13:12:20 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E2ED7C5.1040702@unfix.org>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:06:15 -0700
To: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jul 26, 2011, at 8:05 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On 2011-07-26 16:58 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>=20
>> I will like to know, from those deploying IPv6 services to =
residential
>> customers, if you are planning to provide static or dynamic IPv6 =
prefixes.
>>=20
We (Hurricane Electric) provide statics to all of our customers.
>> Just to be clear, I'm for static prefix delegation to residential
>> customers, however I heard that some ISPs are doing dynamic =
delegations,
>> the same way as is common today with IPv4.
>>=20
>> I don't thin it make sense, as the main reason for doing so in IPv4 =
was
>> address exhaustion and legacy oversubscription models such as =
PPP/dial-up.
>=20
> You are forgetting the simple fact that you can charge for static
> addresses and unblocked connectivity. THAT is the reason for dynamic
> addresses, as on the ISP level there are still enough IPv4 addresses =
and
> they can still, even today, ask for more from their RIR.
>=20
You can only charge for static addresses as long as your competitors =
don't.
Hopefullly with IPv6, that model will go the way of the dodo.
> Abuse/accounting/etc all become much simpler with static addresses.
>=20
> But as long as you give those users dynamic addresses, they might not
> run a SMTP/HTTP/xxx server on their link as changing IPs is
> kind-of-annoying (but doable with the proper DNS setup and low TTLs)
>=20
Let's face it, the users that are going to run an SMTP/HTTP/xxx server =
on their
link are probably the ones that know how to use dyndns or some other =
mechanism
to cope with the dynamic address issue. The ones that aren't already =
running
such services with dynamic IPs are probably not significantly more =
likely to do
so with static.
> Thus, you give them dynamic stuff, or only 1 IP address and ask them =
for
> lots of moneys when they want a static address or hey lots more moneys
> (in the form of a 'business connection') when they want multiple
> addresses routed to their host.
>=20
I don't think this will fly with IPv6 since free tunnels are a simple =
solution where
you can get a /48 for free regardless of what your ISP does to you. I =
think that
this is a temporary problem and that IPv6 will prove to be a =
game-changer
in this arena.
> And don't bother asking for proper reverse setup in a lot of cases
> either, let alone delegation of that.
>=20
Again, I think other than cable MSOs where they have strong topological
reasons to prevent static addressing, IPv6 will see the return of =
unfettered
static addressing and multiple addresses as the default for end users.
I realize there is some resistance to the idea of /48s among some =
residential
providers at this point, but, the majority of them are talking about at =
least
using /56s or better, so, I don't think /128s are at all likely.
> Greets,
> Jeroen
> Happily using the same static IPv6 /48 for almost a decade ;)
Owen
Happily using the same RIR-direct-assigned /48 at home for almost 4 =
years.
