[143035] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Roesen)
Tue Jul 26 17:18:31 2011
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 23:16:55 +0200
From: Daniel Roesen <dr@cluenet.de>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CA545204.488B2%jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:18:37AM -0400, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Also, one can argue that a dynamic prefix facilitates privacy Š
In Germany, there is significant political pushback against the idea to
give residential mom+pop static prefixed for that very reason.
I seriously doubt that any operator with any residential customer base
of relevance would go static, here.
Upsell opportunity and avoiding customers running services don't seem to
be the highest on the list of reasons against static, from what I see.
Wether operators enforce randomization of WAN IP and delegated prefix
though is another question. There are operators who have "stickyness"
for IPv4 (upon reconnect, give the CPE the address it asks for if it's
still available). So leases are generally pretty stable over time in
that scenario. Others configure their DHCP platform to intentionally
randomize.
Best regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
