Many thanks to everyone who replied, even though most people were telling me about PPPoE rather than IPoE. I am not all that familiar with PPPoE (need to educate myself!!), but I can see how many of the issues I mentioned go away with it.
- Philip On 2014-03-25, at 13:29 , Philip Matthews wrote: > Folks: > > Until recently, I was under the impression that most people were using > numbered v6 links to residential subscribers, allocating the WAN address > using DHCPv6. However, recently two people have told me about a number of > providers that are doing unnumbered instead. > > So for anyone who has deployed or is planning to deploy residential IPv6, I > am curious to know which way you are going, and more importantly why you > selected that approach? My interest is primarily in IPoE, but I don't mind > hearing about PPPoE as well. > > The arguments I know or have heard for going numbered are: > * Have a WAN address that one can ping remotely to verify connectivity (here > I am assuming using DHCPv6 to assign a specific IID like ::1) > * Want to use TR-069 > > The arguments I can think of for going unnumbered are: > * Greater security > * Plan to ping the loopback address on the CPE > > > Additional questions for those who have chosen the unnumbered approach or are > using SLAAC to number the WAN address. > * What are you doing wrt having an address to ping to confirm the CPE is > reachable? > * For those doing unnumbered, do all CPEs implement the same algorithm for > selecting the loopback address according to WAA-7 in RFC 7084? If not, how do > you handle this? For example, do you only select CPEs that implement the same > algorithm? Do you just try the likely candidates until one works? Or > something else? > > > - Philip
