nanog mailing list archives
RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
From: "Schiller, Heather A (HeatherSkanks)" <heather.schiller () verizonbusiness com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:53:30 +0000
-----Original Message----- From: Jack Bates [mailto:jbates () brightok net] Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 5:12 PM To: Franck Martin Cc: nanog () nanog org Subject: Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption On 10/18/2010 3:51 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
So they can't run their own services from home and have to request
premium connectivity from you?
Beside the IPv4 scarcity mentality we have the Telco mentality to
fight...
Happy days still ahead...
Of course they can run their own services at home. How does renumber effect that (outside of poor v6 implementations at this late stage)? v6 is designed to support multiple prefixes and the ability to change from one prefix to another with limited disruption, especially if I give 24 hours to complete the transition. If servers and services can't handle this, I'd say they need to improve, or the customer will need a static allocation, which we may or may not charge for (depending on how automated we make it). A sane default of rotation is appropriate for us, though, and no amount of fighting by anyone will make the Telco think that google or others have the right to track their users. It's unfair for our users who block cookies, do due diligence to not be tracked, and then we throw them to the wolves with a constant trackable prefix. HS: Where customers = spammers? The only folks I have seen ask to do 'address rotation' have either been spammers or copyright monitoring services. I have never seen a request for 'address rotation' to protect a customer from Google. Wouldn't you just tell them not to use Google's services? The *typical* residential user doesn't know and probably doesn't care whether their prefix is dynamic or static. Dynamic allocation of address space was, in part, meant to help conserve space - if the prefix was only needed for a couple hours, it could in theory be released and reused... allowing more efficient utilization of space. Now though, with always-on connections and folks wanting to access their content remotely - it makes sense to statically allocate prefixes... and the availability of addresses in IPv6 gives us the room to do this. Jack (knew this would start an argument. *sigh*)
Current thread:
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption, (continued)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Owen DeLong (Oct 18)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Jack Bates (Oct 18)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Joel Jaeggli (Oct 18)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Owen DeLong (Oct 18)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Joel Jaeggli (Oct 18)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Owen DeLong (Oct 18)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption sthaug (Oct 18)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Jack Bates (Oct 18)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Franck Martin (Oct 18)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Jack Bates (Oct 18)
- RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Schiller, Heather A (HeatherSkanks) (Oct 19)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Jack Bates (Oct 19)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Owen DeLong (Oct 19)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Lee (Oct 19)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Robert E. Seastrom (Oct 18)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Marshall Eubanks (Oct 18)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Robert E. Seastrom (Oct 18)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Mark Andrews (Oct 18)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Owen DeLong (Oct 19)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption David Conrad (Oct 18)
- Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Owen DeLong (Oct 19)