[143202] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Tue Aug 2 18:29:01 2011
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADVasu6m7vN0uWOR4LLKP=96w0E-ZogN=qtY48Q8fA62MSUK8A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 15:28:02 -0700
To: james machado <hvgeekwtrvl@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Aug 2, 2011, at 2:42 PM, james machado wrote:
>>> Lets look at some issues here.
>>>=20
>>> 1) it's unlikely that a "normal" household with 2.5 kids and a =
dog/cat
>>> will be able to qualify for their own end user assignment from ARIN.
>>>=20
>>=20
>> Interesting...
>>=20
>> I have a "normal household".
>> I lack 2.5 kids and have no dog or cat.
>>=20
>> I have my own ARIN assignment.
>>=20
>> Are you saying that the 2.5 kids and the dog/cat would disqualify =
them? I can't
>> find such a statement in ARIN policy.
>>=20
>> Are you saying that a household that multihomes is abnormal? Perhaps =
today,
>> but, not necessarily so in the future.
>>=20
>=20
> Yes I am saying a household that mulithomes is abnormal and with
> today's and contracted monopolies I expect that to continue. You are
> not a normal household in that 1) you multihome 2) you are willing to
> pay $1500+ US a year for your own AS, IP assignments
while I don't disagree with the assertion that this is unrealistic the =
annual fee is $100 per org-id for direct assignments.=20
> 3) Internet
> service, much like cell phone service is a commodity product and many
> people go for the lowest price. They are not looking for the best
> options.
>=20
>>> 2) if their router goes down they loose network connectivity on the
>>> same subnet due to loosing their ISP assigned prefix.
>>=20
>> I keep hearing this myth, and I really do not understand where it =
comes from.
>> If they get a static prefix from their ISP and configure it into =
their router and/or
>> other equipment, it does not go away when they loose their router. It =
simply
>> isn't true.
>=20
> If they are using RA's to assign their network and the router goes
> down they can loose the network as well as the router thus going to
> link-local addresses. This has been discusses ad-nauseum on this
> list. As I recall you played a big part of that discussion and it was
> very interesting and informative.
>=20
>>=20
>>> 3) If they are getting dynamic IP's from their ISP and it changes =
they
>>> may or may not be able to print, connect to a share, things like =
that.
>>>=20
>> Perhaps, but, this is another reason that I think sane customers will =
start demanding
>> static IPv6 from their providers in relatively short order.
>>=20
>=20
> I hope this happens but I'm guessing that with marketing and sales in
> the mix it will be another up charge to get this "service" and enough
> people won't pay it that we will be fighting these problems for a long
> time. Some businesses will pay it and some won't but the home user
> will probably not.
>=20
>>> these 3 items make a case for everybody having a ULA. however while
>>> many of the technical bent will be able to manage multiple addresses =
I
>>> know how much tech support I'll be providing my parents with either =
an
>>> IP address that goes away/changes or multiple IP addresses. I'll =
set
>>> them up on a ULA so there is consistency.
>>>=20
>>=20
>> No, they don't. They make a great case for giving people static GUA.
>=20
> These are businesses were talking about. They are not going to "give"
> anything away.
>=20
>>=20
>>> Complain about NAT all you want but NAT + RFC 1918 addressing in =
IPv4
>>> made things such as these much nicer in a home and business setting.
>>>=20
>>=20
>> No, it really didn't. If IPv4 had contained enough addresses we =
probably
>> wouldn't have always-on dynamic connections in the first place.
>>=20
>=20
> Debatable but not worth an argument. Having said that the ability to
> 1) not have to renumber internal address space on changing ISPs 2) not
> having to give a printer (or other device with no security) a public
> IP address or run multiple addressing schemes and the security
> implications there of 3) change the internals of my network without
> worrying about the world are all important and critical issues for me.
>=20
> I realize that these arguments are at layers 8 & 9 of the OSI model
> (politics and religion) but that does not make them less real nor less
> important. They are not the same issues that ISP operators may
> normally have to deal with but they are crucial to business operators.
> The DSCP/RA arguments are of the same criticality and importance.
>=20
>> Owen
>>=20
>=20
> james
>=20
>=20
