> > Experience from IPv4 suggests otherwise. We (as an ISP) normally hand > > out dynamic IPv4 addresses to residential customers, and static IPv4 > > addresses to business customers. > > > > - We have plenty of business customers who *want* dynamic addresses, > > even if static is available as a standard part of their product. > > > > - There are quite a few ISPs here that offer static IPv4 addresses to > > residential customers. Those ISPs haven't captured the whole market, > > strangely enough. > > > > So I completely disagree with the claim that (all) people will choose > > static over dynamic if it is available at the same price. From my POV > > the market here clearly wants both options - and both are available. > > Europe is a little odd in that way, especially DE and NO in that there seems > to be this weird FUD running around claiming that static addresses are > in some way more antithetical to privacy.
I haven't noticed FUD like that here in Norway. From my POV the reason quite a few customers *want* dynamic has much more to do with ease of use: - Dynamic address: Customer connects PC (defaults to DHCP) or router/ firewall with DHCP for the WAN interface plus NAT for the LAN side. Necessary configuration: Small to none. - Static address: Customer needs to configure PC or router/firewall with static address(es). This is no longer a "small touch/zero touch" configuration. For a customer who doesn't know a lot about computers and networking the difference between these two alternatives can be dramatic... Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
