nanog mailing list archives
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)]
From: Nathan Ward <nanog () daork net>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:39:54 +1300
On 10/02/2009, at 11:35 AM, Scott Howard wrote:
Go and ask those people who "feel statics are a given for IPv6" if they would prefer static or dynamic IPv4 addresses, and I suspect most/ all of them will want the static there too. Now ask your average user the samequestion and see if you get the same answer.
I imagine there will be a difference - in my experience few people understand the automatic renumbering that you can do with IPv6, so think that static addressing is the only way forward.
With IPv4 this is not an issue, as they do not re-number internal interfaces when their external IPv4 address changes.
-- Nathan Ward
Current thread:
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Scott Weeks (Feb 04)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Scott Howard (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Nathan Ward (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Michael Thomas (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Nathan Ward (Feb 09)