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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu Feb 5 08:34:57 UTC 2009

On Feb 4, 2009, at 6:19 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:

> 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.
I completely disagree.

> They want DNS that works, with their own domain names, forward and
> reverse.
That's also necessary, but, it's not the full solution.

> They want renumbering events to be infrequent, and announced in
> advance.
You need to define infrequent.  Renumbering more than once a
decade would be problematic and costly for me.  There are lots
of places where my static address is known in configurations that
I do not necessarily control and getting those places all updated
in sync. with some providers arbitrary change is, well, problematic.

Sure, most customers aren't quite in that situation, but, more and
more having to have your specific IP added to some firewall
somewhere (or more than one) is a valid concern.

With IPv6, this challenge will increase, not decrease.

As such, I don't see non-static addresses meeting everyone's

> 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.
There is that, yes.

> 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".
Actually, statics aren't any harder than dynamics if you do your
providing right.  In IPv4, statics are complicated by the fact
that there is a shortage of addresses and so providers try to
recycle.  However, in always on broadband services, statics
really don't take any more effort if the provider does decent
planning, and, providers seem to be able to get away with
charging huge premiums for them.

I doubt providers could charge huge premiums for just making
the basic stuff work, and, they seem to get paid anyway
without doing so. (*note, Comcast is not getting paid by
me pending them actually getting some things right, but,
I seem to be the exception, not the rule).


More information about the NANOG mailing list