nanog mailing list archives
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)]
From: Seth Mattinen <sethm () rollernet us>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:33:12 -0800
Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Anthony Roberts wrote:I don't think there's any need for the ISP's routers to advertise all the prefixes they delegate. They'll advertise the /48 or whatever it is, and then delegate chunks out of that.My apologies for not being clear: As I posted just before in reply to MarkA - I'm hoping that for the MAJORITY of customers that I can use PD and dynamic /64s (or whatever) local to a BRAS. My FEAR is that people ("customers") are going to start assuming that v6 means their own static allocation (quite a number are assuming this). This means that I have a problem with routing table size etc if I have to implement that.
Well, it is static, but like most static IP services offerd by an ISP, if you leave you can't take your addresses with you. Even with DSL from AT&T if you move locations you get a different subnet. ~Seth
Current thread:
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)], (continued)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Howard C. Berkowitz (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Mark Andrews (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Jack Bates (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Anthony Roberts (Feb 04)
- Message not available
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Anthony Roberts (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Seth Mattinen (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Nathan Ward (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Mark Andrews (Feb 04)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] TJ (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Leo Bicknell (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Owen DeLong (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] George William Herbert (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Jack Bates (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Mark Andrews (Feb 04)