mailing list archives
Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 13:09:40 -0700
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.
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.
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
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.