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

Scott Howard scott at doc.net.au
Mon Feb 9 22:35:10 UTC 2009

On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft <mmc at internode.com.au>wrote:

> My issue is that customers have indicated that they feel statics are a
> given for IPv6 and this would be a problem if I went from tens of thousands
> of statics to hundreds of thousands of static routes (ie. from a minority to
>  all).   Even injecting statics into

But is this a general requirement, or just one from the types of people that
are likely to be early adopters for IPv6?

Go and ask those people who "feel statics are a given for IPv6" if they
would prefer static or dynamic IPv4 addresses, and I suspect most/all of
them will want the static there too.  Now ask your average user the same
question and see if you get the same answer.

I don't see static for IPv6 as any more (or less?) of an operational
requirement than for IPv4.  Certain users will definitely require static
address, just as they do for IPv4, and IMHO these should be handled in
exactly the same way - the exact mechanism for which will vary from ISP to


More information about the NANOG mailing list