In message <4e2efacc.4010...@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: ma...@isc.org