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

George William Herbert gherbert at retro.com
Fri Feb 6 01:40:26 UTC 2009

Leo writes:
>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".

I'm one of the geeky fringe here, obviously, but it's hard for
my nameservers at home to not be static IPed be it IPv4 or v6.

There are plenty of possible solutions, but they all involve more
effort by the ISP or DNS provider...

I and they can put in that effort, but just provisioning me
statics is a lot easier, and that's what everyone has done
so far.  Nothing about the IPv6 transition on the transport
end changes the provisioning effort / logistics / technical
support difficulty issues associated with this.

If you believe that geek houses are enough of an outlier to not
worry about, consider the million or so internet connected small
businesses who do their own DNS...

Perhaps there are better ways to do all of this from the start.
But IPv6 is not helping any of the ways we have evolved to deal
with it.

Perhaps it's time for some actual network operators and equipment
vendors to go talk on the side about IPv7 and making our lives
easier rather than harder.  I urge everyone who is involved in
the back-room "bring tar and feathers to next IETF meeting"
discussions to do this instead.  I really don't care how many
bits are wasted on what - I want DNS, routing, endpoint mobility,
multihoming, NAT, et al to work.  If that means bigger packets
or wasted address space so be it.  We have pipe bandwidth and
Moore's Law growth to work with here.

Having to patch the net together for the next decade with
baling wire and string because a bunch of non-operators got
to set IPv6 up to be a more perfect way forward is not scaling.

And 20 years between protocol design and rollout is absurd
and insulting.

-george william herbert
gherbert at retro.com

More information about the NANOG mailing list