nanog mailing list archives
Re: North America not interested in IP V6
From: Niels Bakker <niels=nanog () bakker net>
Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003 21:43:45 +0200
[E.B. Dreger writes]Assign unchanging IP address based on MAC address. Done/done.
* alex () yuriev com (alex () yuriev com) [Sat 02 Aug 2003, 20:28 CEST]:And quadrupple your techsupport costs? Thanks, but no thanks.
[Niels Bakker writes]
For always assigning the same IP address to a customer? Why would this increase support costs?
[Christopher L. Morrow writes]
especially done via dhcp... you could probably even automate getting new ips from a dynamic pool and slapping them into permanent assignments.
* rayw () rayw net (Ray Wong) [Sat 02 Aug 2003, 21:29 CEST]:
And when the customer slaps in a replacement NIC (recall that with wintel NICs the MAC is carried with the card) and he can't get his old address back, do you expect to convince all your customers that's ok, or train your support folks to go into your DHCP config database and reassign the "permanent" assignment? Or do you setup a web-based reg system whereby the customer must connect and get the address reassigned? How little support do you think any of those options will require?
That's one way of doing it; a large cable ISP in the Netherlands required customers to phone in when they had fried their network card. Nowadays the cable modems handed out to subscribers allow configuration of this by the end customer. BUT: I don't think Chris and me were thinking about big bad ugly LANs with customers attached indiscriminately, though. With DSL provisioning systmes using RFC1483 bridged (do I have my buzzwords correct here?) the DHCP server can discriminate between customers based on VCI/VPI numbers instead, negating the need to look at the MAC address of the request.
Who was it that said, "if you can't identify at least 3 new problems introduced by any solution, you don't understand the situation?"
Or you don't understand ours. After all, it's currently all getting done already this way. -- Niels (who thinks IPv6 Router Advertisements are broken when hosts are multihomed)
Current thread:
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6, (continued)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 Scott Francis (Aug 01)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 William Warren (Aug 01)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 Scott Francis (Aug 04)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 Scott Francis (Aug 01)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 Michael . Dillon (Aug 01)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 Marshall Eubanks (Aug 01)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 E.B. Dreger (Aug 01)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 alex (Aug 02)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 Niels Bakker (Aug 02)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 Christopher L. Morrow (Aug 02)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 Ray Wong (Aug 02)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 Niels Bakker (Aug 02)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 Ray Wong (Aug 02)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 Niels Bakker (Aug 02)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 alex (Aug 02)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 alex (Aug 02)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 alex (Aug 02)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 alex (Aug 02)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 Niels Bakker (Aug 02)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 alex (Aug 02)
- Re: North America not interested in IP V6 Niels Bakker (Aug 02)