Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)]
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft <mmc@internode.com.au>wrote:
My issue is that customers have indicated that they feel statics are a given for IPv6 and this would be a problem if I went from tens of thousands of statics to hundreds of thousands of static routes (ie. from a minority to all). Even injecting statics into
But is this a general requirement, or just one from the types of people that are likely to be early adopters for IPv6? Go and ask those people who "feel statics are a given for IPv6" if they would prefer static or dynamic IPv4 addresses, and I suspect most/all of them will want the static there too. Now ask your average user the same question and see if you get the same answer. I don't see static for IPv6 as any more (or less?) of an operational requirement than for IPv4. Certain users will definitely require static address, just as they do for IPv4, and IMHO these should be handled in exactly the same way - the exact mechanism for which will vary from ISP to ISP. Scott.
On 10/02/2009, at 11:35 AM, Scott Howard wrote:
Go and ask those people who "feel statics are a given for IPv6" if they would prefer static or dynamic IPv4 addresses, and I suspect most/ all of them will want the static there too. Now ask your average user the same question and see if you get the same answer.
I imagine there will be a difference - in my experience few people understand the automatic renumbering that you can do with IPv6, so think that static addressing is the only way forward. With IPv4 this is not an issue, as they do not re-number internal interfaces when their external IPv4 address changes. -- Nathan Ward
Nathan Ward wrote:
On 10/02/2009, at 11:35 AM, Scott Howard wrote:
Go and ask those people who "feel statics are a given for IPv6" if they would prefer static or dynamic IPv4 addresses, and I suspect most/all of them will want the static there too. Now ask your average user the same question and see if you get the same answer.
I imagine there will be a difference - in my experience few people understand the automatic renumbering that you can do with IPv6, so think that static addressing is the only way forward.
With IPv4 this is not an issue, as they do not re-number internal interfaces when their external IPv4 address changes.
I wonder how much this is all going to change as there's an inevitable shift from "my computer" being The Client, to "my computer" being one of many "servers" that my cell phone uses, and is generally tethered to. Or just the situation that you have more than one place of residence and there is a somewhat indeterminate concept of what "my computer" really is. This is somewhat reminiscent of the pop/imap days, but there's just so much more stuff these days and broadband is still way too slow to really have a completely viable network/server solution. Fast servers in the network are great, but there are is a fairly large set of things that it just doesn't handle well; manifestly given the still huge split between local and network storage. (what percentage of "stuff" is in the cloud? 1%?) To me, that says that more and more people are going to want to access their "home computer" as if it were a server... which in fact it really is in the case of an iPhone wanting to suck down the latest dross from iTunes. And server means non-client accessiblity however you accomplish that. Mike
participants (3)
-
Michael Thomas -
Nathan Ward -
Scott Howard