[143245] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School )
Wed Aug 3 16:48:29 2011
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 16:47:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <78D5861B-A854-44C8-ABD1-62B783885733@delong.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: froomkin@law.tm
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
[...]
> No, my point is that if you use RFC-4193, there's not really much benefit
> from altering the prefix, so, nobody gets penalized and you can still have
> static addresses.
[...]
If anyone is aware of any other widely-used applications in home/office
computing, or apps or devices in mobile telecoms, that use RFC-4193 *by
default* I would be very interested to learn about them for a paper I am
working on.
--
A. Michael Froomkin, http://www.law.tm Blog: http://www.discourse.net
Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law
Editor, Jotwell: The Journal of Things We Like (Lots), jotwell.com
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | froomkin@law.tm
-->It's hot here.<--
