[143229] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Woodcock)
Wed Aug 3 13:01:27 2011
In-Reply-To: <4E397D55.1000203@gmail.com>
From: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 10:00:37 -0700
To: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Also good for customer privacy. LE can still subpoena ISP logs, but e-comme=
rce sites can't track users quite as easily.=20
=20
-Bill
On Aug 3, 2011, at 9:55, "William Allen Simpson" <william.allen.simpson@gmai=
l.com> wrote:
> 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?)
>>=20
> 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!
>=20
> Thus, enforcing that all the dynamic configuration protocols
> actually work. :-) And nobody starts issuing licenses based on IP
> addresses anymore. :-(
>=20
