Hello!
As the first IPv6 deployments for end-users are in the planning stage
in Germany, I realized I have not found any BCP for handling
addressing in those scenarios. IPv6 will make it a lot easier for
static address deployments but I wonder weather this is in the best
sense for the customers. A
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
Did you reach any conclusion on this matter?
Let the user choose. Here in Sweden we've for 10 years had ISPs offering
static IPv4 address (either handed out via DHCP or just plain static with
no dynamics what so ever) and some users prefer tha
On 18 aug 2010, at 01:12, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> prefer static addressing. But in the world of facebook and co. I
> wonder if it would be a better to let the user have the choice. A
What does facebook have to do with it ? Ever heard of cookies ?
MarcoH
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
>
> On 18 aug 2010, at 01:12, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>
>> prefer static addressing. But in the world of facebook and co. I
>> wonder if it would be a better to let the user have the choice. A
>
> What does facebook have to do with it ?
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> For people who want to use DNS and run services, they'll most likely want a
> static address/subnet that doesn't change in the first place (even though it
> should be handed out via DHCPv6-PD for ease). If someone wants to be
> anonymous
On 18 aug 2010, at 09:35, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
>>
>> On 18 aug 2010, at 01:12, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>>
>>> prefer static addressing. But in the world of facebook and co. I
>>> wonder if it would be a better to let the use
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 01:12:19 +0200
Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> Hello!
>
> As the first IPv6 deployments for end-users are in the planning stage
> in Germany, I realized I have not found any BCP for handling
> addressing in those scenarios. IPv6 will make it a lot easier for
> static address de
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> Haven't really thought about it before.
>
> One thing to consider is that unless the preferred and valid lifetimes
> of an IPv6 prefix are set to infinity, IPv6 prefixes are always dynamic
> - they'll eventually expire unless they're refreshed.
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:18:00 +0200
Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> > Haven't really thought about it before.
> >
> > One thing to consider is that unless the preferred and valid lifetimes
> > of an IPv6 prefix are set to infinity, IPv6 prefixes
Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
the other one will be dynamically allocated. I have no clue how the
user would switch between these subnets (without using some kind of
command line tools).
Web portals work fine, and honestly, it's not like you need to switch
subnets, either. PPPoE/A implementation
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 20:04:47 +0930
Mark Smith
wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 01:12:19 +0200
> Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>
> > Hello!
> >
> > As the first IPv6 deployments for end-users are in the planning stage
> > in Germany, I realized I have not found any BCP for handling
> > addressing in
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
> They help because you're concerned about privacy. You didn't qualify
> that you're only concerned about privacy from geolocation services, so
> I described a mechanism that would provide you as much privacy as
> possible, while also being automa
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> Web portals work fine, and honestly, it's not like you need to switch
> subnets, either. PPPoE/A implementations work great, as they are already
> designed to utilize radius backends to quickly alter static/dynamic on a
> session. For bridging s
* Hannes Frederic Sowa (han...@mailcolloid.de) wrote:
>
> But most people just don't care. My proposal is to have some kind of
> sane defaults for them e.g. changing their prefix every week or in the
> case of a reconnect. This would mitigate some of the many privacy
> concerns in the internet a l
On Aug 19, 2010, at 5:30 AM, Joakim Aronius wrote:
> * Hannes Frederic Sowa (han...@mailcolloid.de) wrote:
>>
>> But most people just don't care. My proposal is to have some kind of
>> sane defaults for them e.g. changing their prefix every week or in the
>> case of a reconnect. This would mitig
Joakim Aronius wrote:
But what about the internal communication in the customer premises? How do they connect to their NAS, media players, printers, TVs etc? Of course there is UPnP, DLNA and different other kinds of magic but I imagine that most home users actually configure IP addresses at some
On 8/19/10 5:30 AM, Joakim Aronius wrote:
> * Hannes Frederic Sowa (han...@mailcolloid.de) wrote:
>>
>> But most people just don't care. My proposal is to have some kind of
>> sane defaults for them e.g. changing their prefix every week or in the
>> case of a reconnect. This would mitigate some of
* Joel Jaeggli (joe...@bogus.com) wrote:
>
> manual configuration of ip address name mappings seems like a rather low
> priority for the average home user...
>
> I don't expect that will be a big activity in the future either, more
> devices means less manual intervention not more.
>
Ok, ok, so
On 08/19/2010 07:58 PM, Joakim Aronius wrote:
* Joel Jaeggli (joe...@bogus.com) wrote:
manual configuration of ip address name mappings seems like a rather low
priority for the average home user...
I don't expect that will be a big activity in the future either, more
devices means less manu
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:30:07 +0200
Joakim Aronius wrote:
> * Hannes Frederic Sowa (han...@mailcolloid.de) wrote:
> >
> > But most people just don't care. My proposal is to have some kind of
> > sane defaults for them e.g. changing their prefix every week or in the
> > case of a reconnect. This w
On 8/18/10 4:20 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
>>> In IPv4-land I have the possibility to
>>> reconnect and get a new unrelated ip-address every time.
>>>
>>
>> They're issued by the same ISP, to they're related.
>
> Ups. Unrelated in the sens
On 8/19/10 10:58 AM, Joakim Aronius wrote:
> * Joel Jaeggli (joe...@bogus.com) wrote:
>>
>> manual configuration of ip address name mappings seems like a
>> rather low priority for the average home user...
>>
>> I don't expect that will be a big activity in the future either,
>> more devices mean
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 01:35:50 +0200
Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:41 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> > Web portals work fine, and honestly, it's not like you need to switch
> > subnets, either. PPPoE/A implementations work great, as they are already
> > designed to utilize radiu
>
> I can remember early network printers using bootp and the assuming that
> they could use that one ip address forever. today the printer will dhcp
> and advertise it's availability in the same broadcast domain and may
> well reregister it's name in dynamic dns if possible.
Funny... I remember
On 8/21/10 11:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> I can remember early network printers using bootp and the assuming that
>> they could use that one ip address forever. today the printer will dhcp
>> and advertise it's availability in the same broadcast domain and may
>> well reregister it's name in dy
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 04:41:56PM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
> prefixes to the unnumbered interface. If you use dslam level controls,
> you'll most likely being using DHCPv6 TA addressing with PD on top of it,
> which works well. Most of which can support quick static/dynamic
> capabilities as it
26 matches
Mail list logo
