dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

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.

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.

Regards,
Jordi

2

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.

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)

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.

And don't bother asking for proper reverse setup in a lot of cases
either, let alone delegation of that.

Greets,
Jeroen
Happily using the same static IPv6 /48 for almost a decade :wink:

3

Agree with all your points.

Also, one can argue that a dynamic prefix facilitates privacy Š

However, if ISPs or third party companies (and thus users ask for more and
more bw) want to offer new services and apps with IPv6, it will be much
easier to implement with static prefixes.

Regards,
Jordi

4

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.

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.

In mobile, v6 addresses will be dynamic with no persistence across link
state changes.

Cb

Regards,
Jordi

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or

confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, including attached files, is prohibited.

5

Static everywhere for me, including residential customers.

~Seth

6

Hi Cameron,

What about routers ? In some locations, users may have only the choice of
cellular broadband instead of DSL, cable or fiber.

Regards,
Jordi

7

given how often the cellular address changes on my Verizon 4g router not to mention the external ip address on their LSN I think I can speculate...

joel

8

Hi Cameron,

What about routers ? In some locations, users may have only the choice of
cellular broadband instead of DSL, cable or fiber.

From an architectural perspective, mobile broadband routers are

treated the same and can expect only ephemeral address assignments.
This is the general case for generic mobile devices accessing the
internet, there can be specific arrangements for specific industrial
use cases (this traffic signal/ gas meter/ windmill always gets this
address).

Cameron

9

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 :wink:

Owen
Happily using the same RIR-direct-assigned /48 at home for almost 4 years.

10

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

11

Hi,

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.

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.

well, it does make sense for most of the residential customers nowadays, because
they are indoctrinated with this idea of dynamic+NAT == privacy for over a decade
now and don't know any better.

So, i don't think it's a good idea to hand out static prefixes to residential customers
by default, it might cause pain.

The best current practice would be, to default to a dynamic prefix, but enable your
more advanced customers to change that to a static prefix at will in your customer
service web-portal or something.

But i have no idea how to sell this to your marketing department.
They again are usually used to sell static IPs for an extra fee, and usually don't
want to change that with IPv6. That's bullshit for IPv6 of course.

(Another idea, which i scrapped after thinking about it in depth was, to hand out
a dynamic P2P prefix (/64) + a /56 (or /48) static on top, so the customer/CPE could chose
what to use, but that is actually too complicated in the end and would need support
in the CPE firmware)

12

Hi,

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.

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.

well, it does make sense for most of the residential customers nowadays, because
they are indoctrinated with this idea of dynamic+NAT == privacy for over a decade
now and don't know any better.

IMNSHO, education is always a better alternative than preserving ignorance or
worse, mis-information.

So, i don't think it's a good idea to hand out static prefixes to residential customers
by default, it might cause pain.

I think it is an excellent idea to do so. I think that any delusions of privacy achieved
through dynamic+NAT are exactly that and need to be shattered. The sooner, the
better.

The best current practice would be, to default to a dynamic prefix, but enable your
more advanced customers to change that to a static prefix at will in your customer
service web-portal or something.

Sounds unnecessarily complicated and with absolutely no benefit whatsoever.

But i have no idea how to sell this to your marketing department.
They again are usually used to sell static IPs for an extra fee, and usually don't
want to change that with IPv6. That's bullshit for IPv6 of course.

It was mostly bullshit for IPv4.

(Another idea, which i scrapped after thinking about it in depth was, to hand out
a dynamic P2P prefix (/64) + a /56 (or /48) static on top, so the customer/CPE could chose
what to use, but that is actually too complicated in the end and would need support
in the CPE firmware)

By default, we (Hurricane Electric) hand out a static /64 for the tunnel point-to-point
and a static /64 for the customer LAN. Upon request we will also issue the customer a
static /48 for their LAN structure.

Owen

13

In Germany, there is significant political pushback against the idea to
give residential mom+pop static prefixed for that very reason.

I seriously doubt that any operator with any residential customer base
of relevance would go static, here.

Upsell opportunity and avoiding customers running services don't seem to
be the highest on the list of reasons against static, from what I see.

Wether operators enforce randomization of WAN IP and delegated prefix
though is another question. There are operators who have "stickyness"
for IPv4 (upon reconnect, give the CPE the address it asks for if it's
still available). So leases are generally pretty stable over time in
that scenario. Others configure their DHCP platform to intentionally
randomize.

Best regards,
Daniel

14

Actually all addresses are dynamic. There are just different lease
periods. Year vs day or hours.

One can also hand out *multiple* prefixes. Ones with a lease period
of year and one with a lease period in hours and let the customer
use the most appropriate one for the particular usage needs.

Mark

15

You wrote:

> Also, one can argue that a dynamic prefix facilitates privacy Š

In Germany, there is significant political pushback against the idea to
give residential mom+pop static prefixed for that very reason.

Do German web sites not track users with cookies, then?

Regards,

Leo

16

Not really - not unless they use privacy addresses or DHCPv6 as well.

Regards, K.

17

How dynamic will dynamic addresses be under IPv6?

IPv4 addresses, with most ISP's, change relatively rarely. Once
or twice a year is not atypical, and sometimes they go for much
longer. The impression I get is that most of the need to renumber
is driven by technological needs, either the subnet sizes and need
to use all addresses in a block, or the combining and splitting of
"segments" (channels, etc) on the cable infrastructure.

With a /64 on each segment the former goes away. Subnet size will
never dictate renumbering. The segments issue could keep driving
it, but it's not hard to imagine a world where your router gets a
dynamic IP out of a /64, and then does DHCP-PD to get your home
block. This block may in fact never need to change.

Basically, in IPv6, even if addresses are assigned "dynamically"
(really automatically) won't the consumer pretty much always have
the same address for the lifetime of their service, for the majority
of consumers?

18

An interesting way to look at it. Perhaps arguably true with IPv6.

However, one must face the reality that at some levels, it's year with
virtually guaranteed option to renew every year, making it effectively
static.

Owen

19

No, it's just a case of the German government not being very smart about
privacy.

Owen

20

There's a subtle but significant difference between what cookies give you,
which is "This is the same entity that visited our page at 7:48PM last
Tuesday", and what easily trackable IP addresses give you, which is "This is an
entity located at 1948 Durhof Street".

Yes, it's often possible to to map between one and the other - but anonymous
and pseudonymous are two different things. It's quite reasonable for somebody
to want to be one but not the other - though it can be difficult in practice.
It's even quite reasonable for somebody to wish to be positively identified,
but their location not easily determined - for instance, I'm posting this as
myself, but I may wish where I'm posting *from* to remain a secret (for
instance, if my location reveals I'm not at home and thus burgling my residence
is more feasible).