On Aug 2, 2011, at 2:42 PM, james machado wrote: >>> 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. >> > > Yes I am saying a household that mulithomes is abnormal and with > today's and contracted monopolies I expect that to continue. You are > not a normal household in that 1) you multihome 2) you are willing to > pay $1500+ US a year for your own AS, IP assignments
while I don't disagree with the assertion that this is unrealistic the annual fee is $100 per org-id for direct assignments. > 3) Internet > service, much like cell phone service is a commodity product and many > people go for the lowest price. They are not looking for the best > options. > >>> 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. > > If they are using RA's to assign their network and the router goes > down they can loose the network as well as the router thus going to > link-local addresses. This has been discusses ad-nauseum on this > list. As I recall you played a big part of that discussion and it was > very interesting and informative. > >> >>> 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. >> > > I hope this happens but I'm guessing that with marketing and sales in > the mix it will be another up charge to get this "service" and enough > people won't pay it that we will be fighting these problems for a long > time. Some businesses will pay it and some won't but the home user > will probably not. > >>> 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. > > These are businesses were talking about. They are not going to "give" > anything away. > >> >>> 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. >> > > Debatable but not worth an argument. Having said that the ability to > 1) not have to renumber internal address space on changing ISPs 2) not > having to give a printer (or other device with no security) a public > IP address or run multiple addressing schemes and the security > implications there of 3) change the internals of my network without > worrying about the world are all important and critical issues for me. > > I realize that these arguments are at layers 8 & 9 of the OSI model > (politics and religion) but that does not make them less real nor less > important. They are not the same issues that ISP operators may > normally have to deal with but they are crucial to business operators. > The DSCP/RA arguments are of the same criticality and importance. > >> Owen >> > > james > >
