The problem with non-routable private ULA addressing is most vendor equipment doesn't support having a SLAAC or DHCP6 dynamic routable address and a static ULA address.
For simple home networks I suppose we could have a RFC that proposes the FE80 address space be used as the "static" address space for SOHO server addressing and locating such as local DNS or single server environments or the end user equipment could just assume that it would be "static" given the common use of EUI-64 for the /64 portion (Windows excepted). Right now, with the way it actually works in the field it is very disruptive every time the /64 is renumbered by the ISP In my experience this happens way too often. An end user should not have to go around and reboot devices, hunt around for the new printer IP and so on just because the ISP caused a renumber of their automatically assigned /64. With SOHO networks which are the vast majority of end user networks we can't make it painful to use IPv6. Even novice users can navigate the web UI of a home router and assign a static IP address to their network printer / scanner / copier etc. and it is very common to do this with IPv4. The random ISP renumbering completely breaks that whole use case. Given the very long IPv6 addresses, DNS (name resolution) becomes very important for most end users. Currently, this works fine on IPv4 because of NAT, PAT & RFC1918. We don't have an operational answer for this on IPv6 at all. For sites such as this I routinely get trouble tickets of random degraded connectivity that can be traced back to an ISP renumber event and one or more pieces of equipment didn't handle the renumber and could not connect to something else on the network or could not connect to something on the IPv6 internet. -----Original Message----- From: Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 4:02 PM To: Matthew Huff <[email protected]>; Nick Hilliard <[email protected]>; Michael Sturtz <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Fernando Gont <[email protected]>; Gert Doering <[email protected]> Subject: static IPs [was Re: ipv6-ops Digest, Vol 159, Issue 1] On 26-Oct-19 04:19, Matthew Huff wrote: > This is part of one of the many reasons corporate acceptance of IPv6 is so > low. The IPv6 design appears to be oriented toward residential, ISP, and > public wifi usages, with little care to corporate needs. Not only is static > IPs desired, but in many cases required by regulation (Auditing, access, > etc...). That is *not* a design issue. It's an ISP business practice issue, and it's why the RIRs have for a long time been assigning /48s for enterprises that want them. > Things like DHCPv6 not supporting DNS server announcements is a good example > (it's available recently, but not across all platforms). Private address may > be a great thing for residential / public wifi, etc... but must be disabled > in many, if not all, corporate environments. Absolutely. They are a recommended default for the consumer market but I would expect most corporate deployments to disable them. > Also, we have found that many software vendors certify their products for > IPv6, but as soon as the PR release is done, their devs no longer test with > IPv6 and their tech support almost always recommend disabling it the first > time you open a ticket. Again, it's a business issue over which paying customers have much more influence that anyone else, but only if they make it a commercial issue. Progress will only come as more and more people stop putting IPv6 in the "too hard" basket. I really do understand that for people running actual services this is not a trivial thing, but it's a real chicken/egg situation, unfortunately. But the signs are good at last. Regards Brian Carpenter > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Nick > Hilliard > Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 11:10 AM > To: Michael Sturtz <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Gert Doering <[email protected]>; Fernando > Gont <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: ipv6-ops Digest, Vol 159, Issue 1 > > Michael Sturtz wrote on 25/10/2019 16:03: >> This sort of operational nonsense will limit the wider acceptance of >> IPv6! I am responsible research and for the documentation and >> implementation of IPv6 for a Fortune 200 company. We have locations >> worldwide. The allocation of unstable end network addresses >> complicates the deployment and support of IPv6. > most service providers view this as a commercial issue rather than a protocol > issue. This is just an observation, btw. > > Nick >
