end-user ipv6 deployment and concerns about privacy
nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org
Sat Aug 21 19:07:20 CDT 2010
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 01:35:50 +0200
Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes at mailcolloid.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> > Web portals work fine, and honestly, it's not like you need to switch
> > subnets, either. PPPoE/A implementations work great, as they are already
> > designed to utilize radius backends to quickly alter static/dynamic on a
> > session. For bridging setups, you have a variety of implementations and it
> > becomes messier. Cisco, while maintaining RBE did away with the concept of
> > proxy-nd, and didn't provide a mechanism for dynamically allocating the
> > prefixes to the unnumbered interface. If you use dslam level controls,
> > you'll most likely being using DHCPv6 TA addressing with PD on top of it,
> > which works well. Most of which can support quick static/dynamic
> > capabilities as it does with v4.
> Thanks. I will have a deeper look in the standards. This sounds like a
> viable solution to me. Albeit, I wonder if there is a drive for the
> big ISPs to implement such features.
Potentially it's a value add that small ISPs can use to distinguish
their basic packet transport services from their larger competitors.
More information about the NANOG