[143228] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Allen Simpson)
Wed Aug 3 12:56:12 2011
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 12:54:45 -0400
From: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <BE01A1B7-289A-4237-AA18-A5D4677264DB@delong.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 8/3/11 4:13 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I agree that autoconf is desirable. Now, please explain to me why it is
> desirable for the address to change at random intervals from the customer
> perspective? (i.e. why would one want dynamic rather than static auto
> configuration?)
>
Because IPv6 was originally designed with the goal of completely
transparent renumbering. Indeed, after many WG meetings over many
years debating renumbering and all the problems that entailed for
IPv4, some of my drafts proposed that IANA would renumber IPv6 for
every ISP and IX at regular intervals!
Thus, enforcing that all the dynamic configuration protocols
actually work. :-) And nobody starts issuing licenses based on IP
addresses anymore. :-(
