On 16th October 2017 RIPE published their "Best Current Operational Practice for Operators: IPv6 prefix assignment for end-users - persistent vs non- persistent, and what size to choose". Their recommendation was that ISP's should issue a permanent static 48-bit prefix (/48) to every customer, so that their customers could add another 16-bits to enable multiple separate /64 local networks, leaving 64 binary bits to identify each network device, with all the address bits visible on the internet without NAT. If this appeared wasteful they pointed out that if every human on earth was allocated a /48 block and none were recovered then there would be enough to last around 480 years. My sister has a relatively new domestic BT broadband connection. The IPv4 address was expected to be dynamic despite BT claiming to have sufficient IPv4 addresses, while the IPv6 address so far has had a static /48 but dynamic /64. Is there a cost involved in providing a static address, or are UK customers considered to be incapable of safely using a static address? Perhaps it just allows them to charge extra for a "business" broadband. -- Chris Bell Website chrisbell.org.uk
-- GLLUG mailing list GLLUG@mailman.lug.org.uk https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug