[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers



In message <4E2EFACC.4010906 at thebaughers.com>, Jason Baugher writes:
> On 7/26/2011 12:06 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > On Jul 26, 2011, at 8:05 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> >
> >> On 2011-07-26 16:58 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I will like to know, from those deploying IPv6 services to residential
> >>> customers, if you are planning to provide static or dynamic IPv6 prefixes
> .
> >>>
> > We (Hurricane Electric) provide statics to all of our customers.
> >
> >>> Just to be clear, I'm for static prefix delegation to residential
> >>> customers, however I heard that some ISPs are doing dynamic delegations,
> >>> the same way as is common today with IPv4.
> >>>
> >>> I don't thin it make sense, as the main reason for doing so in IPv4 was
> >>> address exhaustion and legacy oversubscription models such as PPP/dial-up
> .
> >> You are forgetting the simple fact that you can charge for static
> >> addresses and unblocked connectivity. THAT is the reason for dynamic
> >> addresses, as on the ISP level there are still enough IPv4 addresses and
> >> they can still, even today, ask for more from their RIR.
> >>
> > You can only charge for static addresses as long as your competitors don't.
> > Hopefullly with IPv6, that model will go the way of the dodo.
> >
> >> Abuse/accounting/etc all become much simpler with static addresses.
> >>
> >> But as long as you give those users dynamic addresses, they might not
> >> run a SMTP/HTTP/xxx server on their link as changing IPs is
> >> kind-of-annoying (but doable with the proper DNS setup and low TTLs)
> >>
> > Let's face it, the users that are going to run an SMTP/HTTP/xxx server on t
> heir
> > link are probably the ones that know how to use dyndns or some other mechan
> ism
> > to cope with the dynamic address issue. The ones that aren't already runnin
> g
> > such services with dynamic IPs are probably not significantly more likely t
> o do
> > so with static.
> >
> >> Thus, you give them dynamic stuff, or only 1 IP address and ask them for
> >> lots of moneys when they want a static address or hey lots more moneys
> >> (in the form of a 'business connection') when they want multiple
> >> addresses routed to their host.
> >>
> > I don't think this will fly with IPv6 since free tunnels are a simple solut
> ion where
> > you can get a /48 for free regardless of what your ISP does to you. I think
>  that
> > this is a temporary problem and that IPv6 will prove to be a game-changer
> > in this arena.
> >
> >> And don't bother asking for proper reverse setup in a lot of cases
> >> either, let alone delegation of that.
> >>
> > Again, I think other than cable MSOs where they have strong topological
> > reasons to prevent static addressing, IPv6 will see the return of unfettere
> d
> > static addressing and multiple addresses as the default for end users.
> > I realize there is some resistance to the idea of /48s among some residenti
> al
> > providers at this point, but, the majority of them are talking about at lea
> st
> > using /56s or better, so, I don't think /128s are at all likely.
> >
> >> Greets,
> >> Jeroen
> >> Happily using the same static IPv6 /48 for almost a decade ;)
> >
> > Owen
> > Happily using the same RIR-direct-assigned /48 at home for almost 4 years.
> >
> >
> >
> It's very interesting to hear the majority of you promoting static over 
> dynamic. We are just now starting to work with IPv6 now that our 
> upstreams are willing to give us dual-stack. We've always been a static 
> shop, but sales has been pushing for dynamic for years due to what 
> people have mentioned earlier, the ability to up-sell statics to 
> customers. We prefer static because of the easy tracking of customers 
> for abuse/spam/DMCA complaints and we don't need to worry about DHCP 
> servers. It's heartening to see others of the same mindset encouraging 
> static for IPv6 allocation.

Static and be done with DHCP or manually.
 
> Jason
> 
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org