dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers

Scott Helms khelms at ispalliance.net
Tue Aug 2 20:16:03 UTC 2011

On 8/2/2011 4:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Aug 2, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
>> And just how are you going to make all of us small ISPs, or the big ones for that matter, do that?
> Well, if you want my business, you'll do it.
> If not, I'll route around you as damage. If enough customers approach the problem this way, it will happen.

No disrespect intended, but I don't think you're representative of the 
average or even above average ISP customer.  For that matter neither are 
the majority of the participants on this list.

> In addition, I think a large number of providers are already seeing that static is, for the most part, just simpler
> to manage in IPv6 and considering going that way. The cable MSOs are the obvious exception for semi-obvious
> reasons specific to their technology.

 From my observations only the cable MSOs are even somewhat prepared for 
IPv6 because Cablelabs included it in the DOCSIS 3.0 spec.  The DSL and 
FTTx networks I've seen are much further behind to the point that only 
some kind of tunneling (mainly RD) makes sense as a transition 
technology because of the layer 2 challenges.

> A large organization that does that should get their own PI space and 
> multihome. Why would they do anything else? Owen 

I thought we were talking about residential users specifically here...

Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ISP Alliance, Inc. DBA ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

More information about the NANOG mailing list