dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers

Tue Aug 2 20:09:40 UTC 2011

On Aug 2, 2011, at 12:51 PM, james machado wrote:

>> I don't understand why this is a problem if your ISP gives you a static address.
>> There are, of course, other sources of addresses available as well.
>> Nobody has yet presented me a situation where I would prefer to use ULA over GUA.
>> 
>>> while link-local is necessary it's also probably not sufficient.
>>> 
>> t
>> True.
>> 
>> Owen
> 
> Lets look at some issues here.
> 
> 1) it's unlikely that a "normal" household with 2.5 kids and a dog/cat
> will be able to qualify for their own end user assignment from ARIN.
> 

Interesting...

I have a "normal household".
I lack 2.5 kids and have no dog or cat.

I have my own ARIN assignment.

Are you saying that the 2.5 kids and the dog/cat would disqualify them? I can't
find such a statement in ARIN policy.

Are you saying that a household that multihomes is abnormal? Perhaps today,
but, not necessarily so in the future.

> 2) if their router goes down they loose network connectivity on the
> same subnet due to loosing their ISP assigned prefix.
> 
I keep hearing this myth, and I really do not understand where it comes from.
If they get a static prefix from their ISP and configure it into their router and/or
other equipment, it does not go away when they loose their router. It simply
isn't true.

> 3) If they are getting dynamic IP's from their ISP and it changes they
> may or may not be able to print, connect to a share, things like that.
> 
Perhaps, but, this is another reason that I think sane customers will start demanding
static IPv6 from their providers in relatively short order.

> these 3 items make a case for everybody having a ULA.  however while
> many of the technical bent will be able to manage multiple addresses I
> know how much tech support I'll be providing my parents with either an
> IP address that goes away/changes or multiple IP addresses.  I'll set
> them up on a ULA so there is consistency.
> 

No, they don't. They make a great case for giving people static GUA.

> Complain about NAT all you want but NAT + RFC 1918 addressing in IPv4
> made things such as these much nicer in a home and business setting.
> 

No, it really didn't. If IPv4 had contained enough addresses we probably
wouldn't have always-on dynamic connections in the first place.

Owen