v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] (IPv6-MW)

Mr. James W. Laferriere babydr at baby-dragons.com
Wed Feb 4 22:14:44 CST 2009


 	Hello Matthew ,  See way below ...

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
> Scott Howard wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore 
>> <patrick at ianai.net>wrote:
>>
>>   On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft 
>> <mmc at internode.com.au>wrote:
>>
>> 
>>> but my point was that people are starting to assume that v6 WILL mean
>>> static allocations for all customers.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> By design IPv6 should mean _less_ static allocations than IPv4 - in the
>> event that a client disconnects/reconnects and gets a new /64 then their
>> network *should* automatically handle that fact, with all clients
>> automagically renumbering themselves to the new /64, updating DNS, etc.
>> Local communications won't be impacted as they should be using the
>> link-local address.
>> 
> _should_
>
> As I asked before - I'm really keen to actually do this stuff - but all I get 
> is people who haven't done it telling me theory and not how it works in 
> practise in a real ISP of some scale. 
> Telling customers "well, you might get renumbered randomly" isn't going to 
> work, no matter what the theory about it all is.  They do crazy and 
> unexpected things and bleat about it even if you told them not to.  At worse 
> they stop paying you and leave!
>
> My hope is that PD will be used for the majority and statics will be small in 
> number.  My FEAR is that customers have already been conditioned that v6 will 
> mean statics for everyone because v6 has so many! (This has already been the 
> assumption many have made from the customer side).
>> The bit that isn't clear at the moment is if (and how well) that will
>> actually work in practice.  And that brings us back to the good old 
>> catch-22
>> of ISPs not supporting IPv6 because consumer CPE doesn't support it, and 
>> CPE
>> not supporting it because ISP don't...
>> 
> Tell me about it. 
> As I asked before - has ANYONE done this before?   ie.  fully dualstacked to 
> customers?  Or is it still theory?

 	Has Anyone responded to you on/off list with even a close approximation 
of showing they have accomplished what you've requested ?
 	I am beginning to be worried that no one [has|is willing to divulge] 
that they have accomplished this .  One would think that someone would at least 
pipe up just for the bragging factor .

 		Twyl ,  JimL
-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| James   W.   Laferriere | System    Techniques | Give me VMS     |
| Network&System Engineer | 2133    McCullam Ave |  Give me Linux  |
| babydr at baby-dragons.com | Fairbanks, AK. 99701 |   only  on  AXP |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+




More information about the NANOG mailing list