Re: co-location and access to your server

[Stephen Davis]

> What is considered normal with regards to access to your co-located
> server(s)? Especially when you're just co-locating one or a few servers.

Normally you need an escort so you don't go fiddling with other
people's hardware. Our provider has a callout fee if we want to get in
at nights or weekends.

Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?

[Stephen Davis]

> I'm a full supported for getting rid of NAT when deploying IPv6, but
> have to say the alternative is not all that great either.
>
> Because what do people want, they want privacy, so they use the
> IPv6 privacy extensions. Which are enabled by default on Windows
> when IPv6 is used on XP, Vista and 7.
>
> And now you have no idea who had that IPv6-address at some point
> in time. The solution to that problem is ? I guess the only solution is to
> have the IPv6 equivalant of arpwatch to log the MAC-addresses/IPv6-
> address combinations ?
>
> Or is their an other solution I'm missing.

You can solve this problem any of the ways you could solve it in IPv4.
Either assign static addresses from DHCPv6, or assign static addresses
by hand.

Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Stephen Davis]

> Practically all broadband providers NAT their customers in the US.  If
> you look at the largest ones which are probably Comcast, Verizon, and
> AT&T, you have the majority of US broadband subscribers right there.

You mean they provide CPE which does NAT? Or the CPE actually has a
RFC1918 address on the WAN?