dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers

Jeroen Massar jeroen at unfix.org
Tue Jul 26 15:05:41 UTC 2011


On 2011-07-26 16:58 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I will like to know, from those deploying IPv6 services to residential
> customers, if you are planning to provide static or dynamic IPv6 prefixes.
> 
> Just to be clear, I'm for static prefix delegation to residential
> customers, however I heard that some ISPs are doing dynamic delegations,
> the same way as is common today with IPv4.
> 
> I don't thin it make sense, as the main reason for doing so in IPv4 was
> address exhaustion and legacy oversubscription models such as PPP/dial-up.

You are forgetting the simple fact that you can charge for static
addresses and unblocked connectivity. THAT is the reason for dynamic
addresses, as on the ISP level there are still enough IPv4 addresses and
they can still, even today, ask for more from their RIR.

Abuse/accounting/etc all become much simpler with static addresses.

But as long as you give those users dynamic addresses, they might not
run a SMTP/HTTP/xxx server on their link as changing IPs is
kind-of-annoying (but doable with the proper DNS setup and low TTLs)

Thus, you give them dynamic stuff, or only 1 IP address and ask them for
lots of moneys when they want a static address or hey lots more moneys
(in the form of a 'business connection') when they want multiple
addresses routed to their host.

And don't bother asking for proper reverse setup in a lot of cases
either, let alone delegation of that.

Greets,
 Jeroen
 Happily using the same static IPv6 /48 for almost a decade ;)




More information about the NANOG mailing list