Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

[Lee <ler762 () gmail com>]

On 10/19/10, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2010, at 1:10 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
>
> > On 10/18/2010 1:20 PM, sthaug () nethelp no wrote:
> > > I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need
> > > /48s. No, I don't think "that makes all the address assignments the
> > > same size" is a particularly relevant or convincing argument.
> > >
> > > We're doing /56 for residential users, and have no plans to change
> > > this.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > This not only makes pop assignments easier, it gives a much larger prefix
> > rotation pool. Don't start the flame on rotating prefixes being evil. It's
> > my implementation to at least give customers some chance at prefix
> > privacy.
>
> What if your customers don't want prefix privacy and prefer, instead, to
> have the option of accessing their resources remotely, setting up mobile-IP
> home gateways, and any of the other functions that come from static
> prefixes?

Why does it have to be one or the other?  Isn't it possible to hand
out a static assignment so that users can access their resources
remotely as well as handing out a rotating prefix that changes every
so often so that users have 'some chance at prefix privacy.'

Lee