Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

From your description below, I am pretty sure that one of the following is true:

        1.      Your service area covers ≤1% of the population of whatever state
                or province you are in.

or      2.      Your state or province has a population ≤1% of the US national
                population.

I would argue that I am not an "abnormal" household by any definition other than
my internet access and that even by that definition, I am not particularly abnormal
where I live.

There are many people I know of with much more expensive and elaborate
internet connectivity to their houses than what I have within 30 miles of me.

While I don't think I represent the typical residential ISP customer, I do think that
the typical customer will eventually learn what static addressing is and will want
it for a variety of reasons.

Owen

On Aug 2, 2011, at 5:29 PM, Scott Reed wrote:

> Nothing I can disagree with in your statements and I am not trying to argumentative, but I know my customer base and 
> I can assure you there is not one one them that could tell you what
> ARIN
> Multi-home
> BGP
> OSPF
> RA
> or a host of other terms in your response are, let alone what they mean, why they would care, what they would do with 
> it, etc.
> And you obviously live in a metropolitan area because there isn't DSL in most of my service are, nor is there cable, 
> fiber of any kind and sometimes even satellite doesn't work.  Very few of my customers could be dual-homed, let alone 
> mutil-homed, if they wanted to.
> So, in order to keep the discussion general and to cover all the customer types, skill levels, etc., I really think 
> we need to assume your are not a "normal" household that purchase Internet connectivity to play a game and check 
> Facebook.
>
> One other comment.
> Even those of us the run very small businesses give away things for market share, visibility, etc.
>
> On 8/2/2011 8:03 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > On Aug 2, 2011, at 2:42 PM, james machado wrote:
> >
> > > > > 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.
> > > > Interesting...
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > Yes I am saying a household that mulithomes is abnormal and with
> > > today's and contracted monopolies I expect that to continue.  You are
> > > not a normal household in that 1) you multihome 2) you are willing to
> > > pay $1500+ US a year for your own AS, IP assignments 3) Internet
> > > service, much like cell phone service is a commodity product and many
> > > people go for the lowest price.  They are not looking for the best
> > > options.
> > 1) yes.
> > 2) Uh, no. I pay $100/year to ARIN for all of my IP resources. I really don't
> >      know where this $1,500+/year myth keeps coming from.
> >      I bet most households pay more than $100/year for their internet access.
> >      Heck, if you pay Comcast $5/month for a single static IP, you're paying
> >      more than half of what I pay for 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,944
> >      addresses and an AS Number. If you pay $9/month for 10 static IPs
> >      to Comcast (these are their current rates, btw), you are paying
> >      them MORE than I pay ($108 instead of $100) per year.
> > 3) I think people do some of both. I think that if people can get static for the
> >      same price, they will choose static over dynamic. I think that some
> >      will even choose to use their dynamic to run tunnels where they
> >      can get static. You can get free static tunnels for IPv6 today.
> >
> > So, no, the monopoly problem does not prevent what I am doing from
> > being done in most households because:
> >
> >      1.      Most monopolies are actually at least duopolies with at least
> >              one cable and at least one DSL or PON provider.
> >
> >      2.      Contract monopolies are actually reducing rather than growing.
> >
> >
> > > > > 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
> > > > isn't true.
> > > If they are using RA's to assign their network and the router goes
> > > down they can loose the network as well as the router thus going to
> > > link-local addresses.  This has been discusses ad-nauseum on this
> > > list.  As I recall you played a big part of that discussion and it was
> > > very interesting and informative.
> > 1.   Why would you use RAs to assign numbers to things you want to work
> >      when the router goes down.
> >
> > 2.   This presumes they have only one router. There is no reason, given
> >      static addressing, that they cannot have a High and a Medium priority
> >      router. The High priority router provides connectivity to the ISP and the
> >      medium priority router is essentially /dev/null, but, keeps the addresses
> >      active.
> >
> > Yes, it has been discussed before, but, it continues to be made clear that
> > people are still applying a mixture of misinformation and IPv4-think to
> > the IPv6 situation, so, I continue to work towards better education.
> >
> > > > > 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.
> > > I hope this happens but I'm guessing that with marketing and sales in
> > > the mix it will be another up charge to get this "service" and enough
> > > people won't pay it that we will be fighting these problems for a long
> > > time.  Some businesses will pay it and some won't but the home user
> > > will probably not.
> > Amusingly, I have, so far, refused to pay it to Comcast on my business
> > class service. Every once in a while, they renumber my address and I have
> > to reconfigure my tunnel. (I'm using commodity internet access for layer
> > 2 transport into my home. The BGP is done between my home router and
> > routers in colo facilities via GRE).
> >
> > > > > 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.
> > > These are businesses were talking about.  They are not going to "give"
> > > anything away.
> > Interesting… Hurricane Electric is a business. We give away IPv6 /48s to
> > tunnel broker users. In fact, we give away IPv6 transit services and tunnel
> > access. I see lots of businesses giving things away to try and gain market
> > advantage and customer awareness all the time. Why do you think that
> > a business would not do so, given the overwhelming evidence to the
> > contrary?
> >
> > > > > 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.
> > > Debatable but not worth an argument.  Having said that the ability to
> > > 1) not have to renumber internal address space on changing ISPs 2) not
> > > having to give a printer (or other device with no security) a public
> > > IP address or run multiple addressing schemes and the security
> > > implications there of  3) change the internals of my network without
> > > worrying about the world are all important and critical issues for me.
> > Addressing != security. This issue has definitely been rehashed on
> > here several times and the reality is that you can have just as secure
> > a permit/deny policy with just as much of a default deny with public
> > addresses as you can without them. The difference, of course, is that
> > with public addresses, you have the option of creating permit rules
> > that may not be possible with private addresses depending on your
> > particular implementation (or lack thereof) of address translation.
> >
> > 1.   Multihome and get portable GUA, problem solved. If it's actually
> >      important to you, this is easy.
> >
> > 2.   Since you can give it a public address and still block access
> >      between the internet and it if you so choose (I actually find
> >      it rather convenient to be able to print at home and the only
> >      extra crap that comes out of my printer so far arrives via the
> >      telephone line and the G3 protocol, not via IP), public GUA
> >      does not change the nature of this issue.
> >
> > 3.   I can change the internals of my network without worrying
> >      about the world. I'm not sure why you think I can't. Frankly,
> >      this claim makes no sense to me whatsoever.
> >
> > > I realize that these arguments are at layers 8&  9 of the OSI model
> > > (politics and religion) but that does not make them less real nor less
> > > important.  They are not the same issues that ISP operators may
> > > normally have to deal with but they are crucial to business operators.
> > > The DSCP/RA arguments are of the same criticality and importance.
> > Agreed. However, misinformation and FUD remains misinformation
> > and FUD regardless of the ISO protocol layer in question.
> >
> > Owen
>
> -- 
> Scott Reed
> Owner
> NewWays Networking, LLC
> Wireless Networking
> Network Design, Installation and Administration
>
>
>
> Mikrotik Advanced Certified
>
> www.nwwnet.net
> (765) 855-1060
> (765) 439-4253
> (855) 231-6239

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: