Re: [GLLUG] IPv6 addresses
On 18/07/2021 15:26, Andy Smith via GLLUG wrote: Hello, On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 10:33:03AM +0100, Chris Bell via GLLUG wrote: 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. Correct, in most cases it's an artificial segmentation of the market in order to charge more money. There's no technical benefit and quite a few downsides. In some cases the ISP has more customers or is projected to have more customers than they have IPv4 addresses, so some of them have to be CGNAT, or CGNAT will have to be introduced soon, so it is wise not to let people get used to having a dedicated IPv4 address. There is no such issue with IPv6 so make the main prefix (in your example a /48) static is sensible. The end device /64s within that are often dynamic as a security/privacy measure though ideally this is controlled by the customer's equipment not the provider's. In Switzerland some can now get 25Gbit/s symmetric fibre with static IPv4, static IPv6 and HD TV thrown in, for about £50/mo: https://www.init7.net/en/internet/fiber7/ Cheers, Andy To upset people further - my nephew lives in Singapore, and has his home and office 'net connections at 4 Gb/s symmetric for around $7 / month each! When will we finally catch up? Cheers Chris -- GLLUG mailing list GLLUG@mailman.lug.org.uk https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug
Re: [GLLUG] IPv6 addresses
Hello, On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 10:33:03AM +0100, Chris Bell via GLLUG wrote: > 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. Correct, in most cases it's an artificial segmentation of the market in order to charge more money. There's no technical benefit and quite a few downsides. In some cases the ISP has more customers or is projected to have more customers than they have IPv4 addresses, so some of them have to be CGNAT, or CGNAT will have to be introduced soon, so it is wise not to let people get used to having a dedicated IPv4 address. There is no such issue with IPv6 so make the main prefix (in your example a /48) static is sensible. The end device /64s within that are often dynamic as a security/privacy measure though ideally this is controlled by the customer's equipment not the provider's. In Switzerland some can now get 25Gbit/s symmetric fibre with static IPv4, static IPv6 and HD TV thrown in, for about £50/mo: https://www.init7.net/en/internet/fiber7/ Cheers, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting -- GLLUG mailing list GLLUG@mailman.lug.org.uk https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug
Re: [GLLUG] IPv6 addresses
On Sunday, 18 July 2021 11:03:06 BST John Winters via GLLUG wrote: > On 18/07/2021 10:33, Chris Bell via GLLUG wrote: > [snip] > > > 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. > > Back in the days of dial-up, providing a fixed IP address was quite a > hard problem to solve, given that each time you dialled in you almost > certainly came in on a different modem/port. Most ISPs simply assigned > an IP address to each port and thus that's what you got. Demon went to > a lot of trouble to switch the routing around for each customer and thus > give you a static address. Yes, I joined Demon dial-up, but obtained my own domain name then left when they were sold. > > I suspect that that problem no longer exists, so it's probably just a > mechanism to differentiate between cheaper and more expensive packages > anyway. > > Just another reason not to use BT as an ISP. Go to a serious provider > and save yourself infinite amounts of hassle. > > John I paid a single one-off £5.00 for a static IPv4 address but no IPv6 from Plusnet (now owned by BT), but am less bothered now as my websites and emails are handled by Mythic-Beasts, with CA certificates, and a low total cost including the Plusnet charges. A friend living in a Grosvenor Estate flat in Westminster is now delighted to have the output of a RaspberryPi on his 40 inch TV with full fibre to the flat provided by CommunityFibre at £24.00, less an agreed discount because he is 96. He has a 192.168.0.0/16 address but I have yet to discover whether his IPv6 address is actually static. -- Chris Bell Website chrisbell.org.uk -- GLLUG mailing list GLLUG@mailman.lug.org.uk https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug
Re: [GLLUG] IPv6 addresses
On 18/07/2021 10:33, Chris Bell via GLLUG wrote: [snip] 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. Back in the days of dial-up, providing a fixed IP address was quite a hard problem to solve, given that each time you dialled in you almost certainly came in on a different modem/port. Most ISPs simply assigned an IP address to each port and thus that's what you got. Demon went to a lot of trouble to switch the routing around for each customer and thus give you a static address. I suspect that that problem no longer exists, so it's probably just a mechanism to differentiate between cheaper and more expensive packages anyway. Just another reason not to use BT as an ISP. Go to a serious provider and save yourself infinite amounts of hassle. John -- Xronos Scheduler - https://xronos.uk/ All your school's schedule information in one place. Timetable, activities, homework, public events - the lot Live demo at https://schedulerdemo.xronos.uk/ -- GLLUG mailing list GLLUG@mailman.lug.org.uk https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug
[GLLUG] IPv6 addresses
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