Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers

[Jason Baugher <jason () thebaughers com>]

On 7/26/2011 12:06 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2011, at 8:05 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
> > On 2011-07-26 16:58 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I will like to know, from those deploying IPv6 services to residential
> > > customers, if you are planning to provide static or dynamic IPv6 prefixes.
> We (Hurricane Electric) provide statics to all of our customers.
>
> > > Just to be clear, I'm for static prefix delegation to residential
> > > customers, however I heard that some ISPs are doing dynamic delegations,
> > > the same way as is common today with IPv4.
> > >
> > > I don't thin it make sense, as the main reason for doing so in IPv4 was
> > > address exhaustion and legacy oversubscription models such as PPP/dial-up.
> > You are forgetting the simple fact that you can charge for static
> > addresses and unblocked connectivity. THAT is the reason for dynamic
> > addresses, as on the ISP level there are still enough IPv4 addresses and
> > they can still, even today, ask for more from their RIR.
> You can only charge for static addresses as long as your competitors don't.
> Hopefullly with IPv6, that model will go the way of the dodo.
>
> > Abuse/accounting/etc all become much simpler with static addresses.
> >
> > But as long as you give those users dynamic addresses, they might not
> > run a SMTP/HTTP/xxx server on their link as changing IPs is
> > kind-of-annoying (but doable with the proper DNS setup and low TTLs)
> Let's face it, the users that are going to run an SMTP/HTTP/xxx server on their
> link are probably the ones that know how to use dyndns or some other mechanism
> to cope with the dynamic address issue. The ones that aren't already running
> such services with dynamic IPs are probably not significantly more likely to do
> so with static.
>
> > Thus, you give them dynamic stuff, or only 1 IP address and ask them for
> > lots of moneys when they want a static address or hey lots more moneys
> > (in the form of a 'business connection') when they want multiple
> > addresses routed to their host.
> I don't think this will fly with IPv6 since free tunnels are a simple solution where
> you can get a /48 for free regardless of what your ISP does to you. I think that
> this is a temporary problem and that IPv6 will prove to be a game-changer
> in this arena.
>
> > And don't bother asking for proper reverse setup in a lot of cases
> > either, let alone delegation of that.
> Again, I think other than cable MSOs where they have strong topological
> reasons to prevent static addressing, IPv6 will see the return of unfettered
> static addressing and multiple addresses as the default for end users.
> I realize there is some resistance to the idea of /48s among some residential
> providers at this point, but, the majority of them are talking about at least
> using /56s or better, so, I don't think /128s are at all likely.
>
> > Greets,
> > Jeroen
> > Happily using the same static IPv6 /48 for almost a decade ;)
>
> Owen
> Happily using the same RIR-direct-assigned /48 at home for almost 4 years.
It's very interesting to hear the majority of you promoting static over 
dynamic. We are just now starting to work with IPv6 now that our 
upstreams are willing to give us dual-stack. We've always been a static 
shop, but sales has been pushing for dynamic for years due to what 
people have mentioned earlier, the ability to up-sell statics to 
customers. We prefer static because of the easy tracking of customers 
for abuse/spam/DMCA complaints and we don't need to worry about DHCP 
servers. It's heartening to see others of the same mindset encouraging 
static for IPv6 allocation.

Jason