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

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Thu Feb 5 02:19:07 UTC 2009

In a message written on Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 11:58:33AM +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
> My FEAR is that people ("customers") are going to start assuming that v6 
> means their own static allocation (quite a number are assuming this).   
> This means that I have a problem with routing table size etc if I have 
> to implement that.

Customers don't want static addresses.

They want DNS that works, with their own domain names, forward and

They want renumbering events to be infrequent, and announced in

They want the box the cable/dsl/fios provider to actually work,
that is be able to do really simple stuff without having to buy
another stupid box to put behind it.

None of these require static, and in fact I'd think it would be
easier to get it right than it would be to do statics for most
providers.  But, I must be wrong, since the only solution virtually
every provider offers is to "move up" to "a static IP".

       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20090204/67093f6d/attachment.sig>

More information about the NANOG mailing list