nanog mailing list archives
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] (IPv6-MW)
From: "Mr. James W. Laferriere" <babydr () baby-dragons com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 19:14:44 -0900 (AKST)
Hello Matthew , See way below ... On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Scott Howard wrote:On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick () ianai net>wrote:On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft <mmc () internode com au>wrote:but my point was that people are starting to assume that v6 WILL mean static allocations for all customers.By design IPv6 should mean _less_ static allocations than IPv4 - in the event that a client disconnects/reconnects and gets a new /64 then their network *should* automatically handle that fact, with all clients automagically renumbering themselves to the new /64, updating DNS, etc. Local communications won't be impacted as they should be using the link-local address._should_As I asked before - I'm really keen to actually do this stuff - but all I get is people who haven't done it telling me theory and not how it works in practise in a real ISP of some scale. Telling customers "well, you might get renumbered randomly" isn't going to work, no matter what the theory about it all is. They do crazy and unexpected things and bleat about it even if you told them not to. At worse they stop paying you and leave!My hope is that PD will be used for the majority and statics will be small in number. My FEAR is that customers have already been conditioned that v6 will mean statics for everyone because v6 has so many! (This has already been the assumption many have made from the customer side).Tell me about it. As I asked before - has ANYONE done this before? ie. fully dualstacked to customers? Or is it still theory?The bit that isn't clear at the moment is if (and how well) that willactually work in practice. And that brings us back to the good old catch-22 of ISPs not supporting IPv6 because consumer CPE doesn't support it, and CPEnot supporting it because ISP don't...
Has Anyone responded to you on/off list with even a close approximation of showing they have accomplished what you've requested ? I am beginning to be worried that no one [has|is willing to divulge] that they have accomplished this . One would think that someone would at least pipe up just for the bragging factor .
Twyl , JimL -- +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | Network&System Engineer | 2133 McCullam Ave | Give me Linux | | babydr () baby-dragons com | Fairbanks, AK. 99701 | only on AXP | +------------------------------------------------------------------+
Current thread:
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)], (continued)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Tony Finch (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Paul Jakma (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Jack Bates (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Bill Stewart (Feb 07)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 07)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] (IPv6-MW) Scott Howard (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] (IPv6-MW) Mark Andrews (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] (IPv6-MW) Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] (IPv6-MW) Mr. James W. Laferriere (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] (IPv6-MW) Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] (IPv6-MW) Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] (IPv6-MW) Nathan Ward (Feb 04)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] (IPv6-MW) TJ (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] (IPv6-MW) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] (IPv6-MW) Jack Bates (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] (IPv6-MW) Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] (IPv6-MW) Nathan Ward (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Joe Abley (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 04)