On Aug 2, 2011, at 12:51 PM, james machado wrote: >> I don't understand why this is a problem if your ISP gives you a static >> address. >> There are, of course, other sources of addresses available as well. >> Nobody has yet presented me a situation where I would prefer to use ULA over >> GUA. >> >>> while link-local is necessary it's also probably not sufficient. >>> >> t >> True. >> >> Owen > > Lets look at some issues here. > > 1) it's unlikely that a "normal" household with 2.5 kids and a dog/cat > will be able to qualify for their own end user assignment from ARIN. >
Interesting... I have a "normal household". I lack 2.5 kids and have no dog or cat. I have my own ARIN assignment. Are you saying that the 2.5 kids and the dog/cat would disqualify them? I can't find such a statement in ARIN policy. Are you saying that a household that multihomes is abnormal? Perhaps today, but, not necessarily so in the future. > 2) if their router goes down they loose network connectivity on the > same subnet due to loosing their ISP assigned prefix. > I keep hearing this myth, and I really do not understand where it comes from. If they get a static prefix from their ISP and configure it into their router and/or other equipment, it does not go away when they loose their router. It simply isn't true. > 3) If they are getting dynamic IP's from their ISP and it changes they > may or may not be able to print, connect to a share, things like that. > Perhaps, but, this is another reason that I think sane customers will start demanding static IPv6 from their providers in relatively short order. > these 3 items make a case for everybody having a ULA. however while > many of the technical bent will be able to manage multiple addresses I > know how much tech support I'll be providing my parents with either an > IP address that goes away/changes or multiple IP addresses. I'll set > them up on a ULA so there is consistency. > No, they don't. They make a great case for giving people static GUA. > Complain about NAT all you want but NAT + RFC 1918 addressing in IPv4 > made things such as these much nicer in a home and business setting. > No, it really didn't. If IPv4 had contained enough addresses we probably wouldn't have always-on dynamic connections in the first place. Owen
