v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)]
jbates at brightok.net
Thu Feb 5 14:28:29 UTC 2009
Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
> Currently with v4 I have one (majority) of customers where they have
> dynamic addresses. For those I'm happy to use PD - but my point was
> that people are starting to assume that v6 WILL mean static allocations
> for all customers. This is my fear, is NOT being able to use PD for the
> "residential grade" customers. Having to provide static allocations is
> a problem if I have multiple POPs in a geographic region as I can't
> summarise and get the redundancy I want.
Summary of IPv6 is easy enough, and you'll probably assign at least two
/48 networks to a pop, one for infrastructure and one for PD. I'm sure
there will be more.
> (If I commit to a customer they have a static range then I can't easily
> change it on them - esp if they've done things like used the addresses
> statically in DNS etc as our customers are want to do).
There is a difference between static assignments to an interface for
technical reasons and giving a customer a "static". Even if the customer
technically has a static address, you are still allowed to change it so
long as you are not giving him a static address. It's just a long term
dynamic prefix. Renumbering IPv6 is a cake walk compared to IPv4, as it
is somewhat more friendly to existing connections than IPv4 (if using
> Has anyone out there actually done an implentation, across DSL of PD?
> If you have PLEASE let me know on list/off list/by dead letter drop in a
> park. Especially interested in CPE etc.
Cable is much further along on CPE than most home routers. Outside of
the Apple Airport, I think there's only a handful of CPE home routers
with v6 capabilities.
Here's someone's experience with a real home v6 implementation from ISP
side to home router. http://geekmerc.livejournal.com/699.html
More information about the NANOG