nanog mailing list archives

Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?


From: Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 09:54:59 +1000


In message <67D28817-D47B-468F-9212-186C60531140 () internode com au>, Mark Newton
 writes:

On 20/04/2010, at 1:28 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:

Changing from a public IP address to a private IP address is a big
change in the conditions of the contract.  People do select ISP's
on the basis of whether they will get a public IP address or a
private IP address.

Seems to me your objection is based on whether or not the customer
gets a public address vs a private address.

There's no need for NAT pools to be RFC1918.  Pretty sure everyone
is going to get a public address of some form... it just won't
necessarily be globally unique to them.

RFC1918 addresses are not the only source of private addresses.  If
you are giving out addresses behind a NAT then they are private address.
 
As for jurisdictional issues:  This particular Australian ISP amended
its T&C document to give us the discretion of providing LSN addresses
about two years ago.  Will we need to?  Perhaps not.  But if we do, the
T&C's are already worked out.  Looking ahead in time and forecasting
future risks is one of the things businesses are supposed to do, right?

Which is a good thing to do.  If you are offering a (potentially)
degraded service then the customer needs to be informed before they
agree to the service.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka () isc org


Current thread: