dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Wed Aug 3 00:03:46 UTC 2011

On Aug 2, 2011, at 2:42 PM, james machado wrote:

>>> 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.
> Yes I am saying a household that mulithomes is abnormal and with
> today's and contracted monopolies I expect that to continue.  You are
> not a normal household in that 1) you multihome 2) you are willing to
> pay $1500+ US a year for your own AS, IP assignments 3) Internet
> service, much like cell phone service is a commodity product and many
> people go for the lowest price.  They are not looking for the best
> options.

1) yes.
2) Uh, no. I pay $100/year to ARIN for all of my IP resources. I really don't
	know where this $1,500+/year myth keeps coming from.
	I bet most households pay more than $100/year for their internet access.
	Heck, if you pay Comcast $5/month for a single static IP, you're paying
	more than half of what I pay for 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,944
	addresses and an AS Number. If you pay $9/month for 10 static IPs
	to Comcast (these are their current rates, btw), you are paying
	them MORE than I pay ($108 instead of $100) per year.
3) I think people do some of both. I think that if people can get static for the
	same price, they will choose static over dynamic. I think that some
	will even choose to use their dynamic to run tunnels where they
	can get static. You can get free static tunnels for IPv6 today.

So, no, the monopoly problem does not prevent what I am doing from
being done in most households because:

	1.	Most monopolies are actually at least duopolies with at least
		one cable and at least one DSL or PON provider.

	2.	Contract monopolies are actually reducing rather than growing.

>>> 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.
> If they are using RA's to assign their network and the router goes
> down they can loose the network as well as the router thus going to
> link-local addresses.  This has been discusses ad-nauseum on this
> list.  As I recall you played a big part of that discussion and it was
> very interesting and informative.

1.	Why would you use RAs to assign numbers to things you want to work
	when the router goes down.

2.	This presumes they have only one router. There is no reason, given
	static addressing, that they cannot have a High and a Medium priority
	router. The High priority router provides connectivity to the ISP and the
	medium priority router is essentially /dev/null, but, keeps the addresses

Yes, it has been discussed before, but, it continues to be made clear that
people are still applying a mixture of misinformation and IPv4-think to
the IPv6 situation, so, I continue to work towards better education.

>>> 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.
> I hope this happens but I'm guessing that with marketing and sales in
> the mix it will be another up charge to get this "service" and enough
> people won't pay it that we will be fighting these problems for a long
> time.  Some businesses will pay it and some won't but the home user
> will probably not.

Amusingly, I have, so far, refused to pay it to Comcast on my business
class service. Every once in a while, they renumber my address and I have
to reconfigure my tunnel. (I'm using commodity internet access for layer
2 transport into my home. The BGP is done between my home router and
routers in colo facilities via GRE).

>>> 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.
> These are businesses were talking about.  They are not going to "give"
> anything away.

Interesting… Hurricane Electric is a business. We give away IPv6 /48s to
tunnel broker users. In fact, we give away IPv6 transit services and tunnel
access. I see lots of businesses giving things away to try and gain market
advantage and customer awareness all the time. Why do you think that
a business would not do so, given the overwhelming evidence to the

>>> 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.
> Debatable but not worth an argument.  Having said that the ability to
> 1) not have to renumber internal address space on changing ISPs 2) not
> having to give a printer (or other device with no security) a public
> IP address or run multiple addressing schemes and the security
> implications there of  3) change the internals of my network without
> worrying about the world are all important and critical issues for me.

Addressing != security. This issue has definitely been rehashed on
here several times and the reality is that you can have just as secure
a permit/deny policy with just as much of a default deny with public
addresses as you can without them. The difference, of course, is that
with public addresses, you have the option of creating permit rules
that may not be possible with private addresses depending on your
particular implementation (or lack thereof) of address translation.

1.	Multihome and get portable GUA, problem solved. If it's actually
	important to you, this is easy.

2.	Since you can give it a public address and still block access
	between the internet and it if you so choose (I actually find
	it rather convenient to be able to print at home and the only
	extra crap that comes out of my printer so far arrives via the
	telephone line and the G3 protocol, not via IP), public GUA
	does not change the nature of this issue.

3.	I can change the internals of my network without worrying
	about the world. I'm not sure why you think I can't. Frankly,
	this claim makes no sense to me whatsoever.

> I realize that these arguments are at layers 8 & 9 of the OSI model
> (politics and religion) but that does not make them less real nor less
> important.  They are not the same issues that ISP operators may
> normally have to deal with but they are crucial to business operators.
> The DSCP/RA arguments are of the same criticality and importance.

Agreed. However, misinformation and FUD remains misinformation
and FUD regardless of the ISO protocol layer in question.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20110802/db1d5e60/attachment.bin>

More information about the NANOG mailing list