[143221] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (sthaug@nethelp.no)
Wed Aug 3 04:05:14 2011
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:04:39 +0200 (CEST)
To: owen@delong.com
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <364F1DA6-861A-46B8-95F4-5B9B0B62EF35@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> > Experience from IPv4 suggests otherwise. We (as an ISP) normally hand
> > out dynamic IPv4 addresses to residential customers, and static IPv4
> > addresses to business customers.
> >
> > - We have plenty of business customers who *want* dynamic addresses,
> > even if static is available as a standard part of their product.
> >
> > - There are quite a few ISPs here that offer static IPv4 addresses to
> > residential customers. Those ISPs haven't captured the whole market,
> > strangely enough.
> >
> > So I completely disagree with the claim that (all) people will choose
> > static over dynamic if it is available at the same price. From my POV
> > the market here clearly wants both options - and both are available.
>
> Europe is a little odd in that way, especially DE and NO in that there seems
> to be this weird FUD running around claiming that static addresses are
> in some way more antithetical to privacy.
I haven't noticed FUD like that here in Norway. From my POV the reason
quite a few customers *want* dynamic has much more to do with ease of
use:
- Dynamic address: Customer connects PC (defaults to DHCP) or router/
firewall with DHCP for the WAN interface plus NAT for the LAN side.
Necessary configuration: Small to none.
- Static address: Customer needs to configure PC or router/firewall
with static address(es). This is no longer a "small touch/zero touch"
configuration.
For a customer who doesn't know a lot about computers and networking
the difference between these two alternatives can be dramatic...
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
