dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue Jul 26 17:06:15 UTC 2011


On Jul 26, 2011, at 8:05 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:

> 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.
>> 

We (Hurricane Electric) provide statics to all of our customers.

>> 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.
> 

You can only charge for static addresses as long as your competitors don't.
Hopefullly with IPv6, that model will go the way of the dodo.

> 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)
> 

Let's face it, the users that are going to run an SMTP/HTTP/xxx server on their
link are probably the ones that know how to use dyndns or some other mechanism
to cope with the dynamic address issue. The ones that aren't already running
such services with dynamic IPs are probably not significantly more likely to do
so with static.

> 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.
> 

I don't think this will fly with IPv6 since free tunnels are a simple solution where
you can get a /48 for free regardless of what your ISP does to you. I think that
this is a temporary problem and that IPv6 will prove to be a game-changer
in this arena.

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

Again, I think other than cable MSOs where they have strong topological
reasons to prevent static addressing, IPv6 will see the return of unfettered
static addressing and multiple addresses as the default for end users.
I realize there is some resistance to the idea of /48s among some residential
providers at this point, but, the majority of them are talking about at least
using /56s or better, so, I don't think /128s are at all likely.

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


Owen
Happily using the same RIR-direct-assigned /48 at home for almost 4 years.





More information about the NANOG mailing list