JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> writes:
I will like to know, from those deploying IPv6 services to residential customers, if you are planning to provide static or dynamic IPv6 prefixes.
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.
We will do "semi-static" PD for residential users. In practice most users will see this as static, but we may reallocate users if necessary to preserve aggregation. One point I often miss in the endless discussions wrt dynamic/static IPv6 with references to the dynamic IPv4 world, is the lack of RFC1918 addressing for IPv6. The fact is that all residential users are used to, and depend on, static IPv4 addressing within their own network. They assign e.g. 192.168.5.5 to their printer and 192.168.5.6 to their NAS, and trust that those addresses are static. Now moving to IPv6, their choices are either link local or a static delegated prefix. Link local will of course work and be completely static for a given device, but does have a couple of drawbacks which I believe will make most users want a static global prefix instead: - ugly addresses, often not configurable - the need to specify outgoing interface on any PC/whatever you want to talk to the link local addresss For this reason, I argue that residential users are used to static IPv4 addresses and will demand static IPv6 addresses. The fact that their globally routed IPv4 address is dynamic is completely irrelevant as long as a similar mechanism isn't available for IPv6 (no, I won't mention NAT66). Bjørn