dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers

-------- matt.addison@lists.evilgeni.us wrote: ---------------------

Man, leave one smiley off and it follows you for life. :wink:


Yes, Scott, I know it's a hard problem, and many of the issues are non-protocol
ones to boot.

(And I *thought* I had enough fame as a member of the tinfoil helmet brigade
that nobody would seriously think the McNeely quote actually summarized the way
I think things should be - though it may well summarize where I think things
are headed despite our best efforts...)

And there you sprung into a trap. You will be the only one doing this
and having no history and thus you stick out very well, as the new guy
on the Internet every single day, from a similar prefix, but still
accessing a similar set of hosts etc. I think I did a talk about that at
CCC last year :wink:

You are blocking all the facebook/google+ like and the insane amount of
advertisement (read: tracking) networks who are included on almost every
page do you? As everytime you fetch a page, even if it is not the main
site, you also hit them for an ad or a like-button (even if it is just
the image and you don't actually click you hit their server) and voila
you are tracked anyway.

Giving dynamic addresses out thus only still have one valid reason:
nomadic users and the ability to aggregate prefixes inside a network.
Because when users are static, you just route a /36 to a location and
route prefixes out of that to the users and voila. When they are
nomadic/mobile you don't want all those millions of /48s polluting your
iBGP though.

For every other case, dynamic addresses just make no sense, except for
the cash cow that they are and that is the real reason that is the
default being offered, as technically they cost more money.