RE: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers

["Jamie Bowden" <jamie () photon com>]

Oh please, you know practical, operational, and security concerns mean nothing next to the beauty and purity of the 
perfect network protocol design.

Jamie

-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:jra () baylink com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 3:56 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers

----- Original Message -----
> From: "james machado" <hvgeekwtrvl () gmail com>

> 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.

An argument I've been making right along.  Concern about what's happening
network-wise outside my edge router belongs to my edge router, *and no 
other device on my LAN* should be held hostage by problems there.

That's my best practice advice (to my clients, at least), and if IPv6
makes that impossible, well, then, things are gonna get messy, until someone
figures out a way around it, cause I'm sure I'm not the only person who 
views it that way...

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra () baylink com
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com         2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA      http://photo.imageinc.us             +1 727 647 1274