nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing)
From: Jon Lewis via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2025 00:15:39 -0500 (EST)
On Tue, 2 Dec 2025, Marco Moock via NANOG wrote:
Now, if I want to assign static addresses for devices within my home network, I don’t have a problem with v4 - everything’s RFC1918, so if the public IP changes, NBD, and I can even do it with DHCP client IDs. However, if my IPv6 PD changes and my home devices all have GUAs assigned via SLAAC, then… guess what - every IPv6 device address in my network just changed. Oops. Practically, I’ve worked around this by manually assigning LUAs to the devices that need static v6 addresses, like my SAN and the machines that do NFS mounts from it. But 1. that’s more than annoyingly clunky - hardly the improved experience that IPv6 promised - and 2. weren’t we trying to get away from LUAs in the first place?That is something your ISP is intentionally doing - unrelated to the IPv6 specification. There is no technical reason not to give a static net to a customer, it doesn't cost more (although some ISP charge for that).
It's more work for the ISP (to make the static assignments, delete them from DHCPv6 config when a customer terminates service, etc.). It's much simpler to just define DHCP pools (and PD pools) and let the DHCP server hand out IPs and subnets and keep track of the leases.
I'm curious though, do any broadband providers [of size] doing v6 assign a static PD subnet to each customer? It's one thing to keep track of a handful of statics. It's another to keep track of tens or hundreds of thousands of them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route Blue Stream Fiber, Sr. Neteng | therefore you are _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ _______________________________________________NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/4KKELZMBL5YN24M3DTB4EQWP6UVR7FSH/
Current thread:
- IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing), (continued)
- IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing) Bryan Fields via NANOG (Dec 01)
- Re: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing) Josh Luthman via NANOG (Dec 01)
- RE: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing) Gary Sparkes via NANOG (Dec 01)
- Re: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing) Chris Woodfield via NANOG (Dec 01)
- RE: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing) Gary Sparkes via NANOG (Dec 01)
- Re: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing) Tim Burke via NANOG (Dec 01)
- Re: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing) Marco Moock via NANOG (Dec 01)
- Re: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing) Geoff Huston via NANOG (Dec 01)
- Re: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing) Marco Moock via NANOG (Dec 01)
- Re: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing) Marco Moock via NANOG (Dec 01)
- Re: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing) Jon Lewis via NANOG (Dec 01)
- Re: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing) Marco Moock via NANOG (Dec 01)
- RE: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing) Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG (Dec 01)
- Re: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing) Lee Howard via NANOG (Dec 02)
- Re: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing) Tom Beecher via NANOG (Dec 02)
- RE: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing) Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG (Dec 02)
- Re: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing) Lee Howard via NANOG (Dec 03)
- RE: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing) Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG (Dec 03)
- Re: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing) Marco Moock via NANOG (Dec 03)
- RE: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing) Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG (Dec 04)
- Re: IPv6 Performance (was Re: IPv4 Pricing) Robert Kisteleki via NANOG (Dec 04)
