nanog mailing list archives
Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
From: Mark Smith <nanog () 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc nosense org>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 08:20:33 +0930
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:21:16 -0400 Richard Barnes <richard.barnes () gmail com> wrote:
Moreover, the general point stands that Mark's problem is one of bad ISP decisions, not anything different between IPv4/RFC1918 and IPv6.
My example, although a bit convoluted to demonstrate a point, is about robustness against Internet link failure. I don't think people's internal connectivity should be dependent on their Internet link being available and being assigned global address space. That's what the global only people are saying. (how is the customer going to access the CPE webserver to enter ISP login details when they get the CPE out of the box, if hasn't got address space because it hasn't connected to the ISP ...)
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:On Apr 25, 2010, at 8:17 AM, Tony Hoyle wrote:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 25/04/2010 03:01, Mark Smith wrote:I'm a typical, fairly near future residential customer. I have a NAS that I have movies stored on. My ISP delegates an IPv6 prefix to me with a preferred lifetime of 60 minutes, and a valid lifetime of 90 minutesWhat ISP would put a 'lifetime' on your ipv6 prefix? That seems insane to me... they should give you a /48 and be done with it. Even the free tunnel brokers do that. But then I never understood dynamic ipv4 either....If they are using DHCP-PD, then, it comes with a lifetime whether it is static or not. The reality is that unless they need to renumber you, you'll probably get a new RA with the 60/90 minute lifetimes specified each time RAs are sent and your counters will all get reset to 60/90 for the foreseeable future. The preferred and valid lifetimes aren't limitations, they're minimums. The prefix should be yours and should be functional for you for AT LEAST the valid lifetime. Owen
Current thread:
- Re: DHCP Use (was Re: ), (continued)
- Re: DHCP Use (was Re: ) Seth Mattinen (Apr 25)
- Re: DHCP Use (was Re: ) Jack Bates (Apr 25)
- Re: DHCP Use (was Re: ) Seth Mattinen (Apr 25)
- Re: DHCP Use (was Re: ) Tony Hoyle (Apr 26)
- Re: DHCP Use (was Re: ) Roy (Apr 25)
- Re: DHCP Use (was Re: ) Mikael Abrahamsson (Apr 25)
- Re: DHCP Use (was Re: ) Jack Bates (Apr 26)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Mark Smith (Apr 25)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Owen DeLong (Apr 25)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Richard Barnes (Apr 25)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Mark Smith (Apr 25)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Matthew Palmer (Apr 25)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Tony Hoyle (Apr 25)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Mark Smith (Apr 25)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Mark Smith (Apr 25)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Owen DeLong (Apr 25)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Doug Barton (Apr 25)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Mikael Abrahamsson (Apr 25)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Doug Barton (Apr 25)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Mark Smith (Apr 25)
- Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] Jack Bates (Apr 25)