- Original Message -
> From: "Jamie Bowden"
> Oh please, you know practical, operational, and security concerns mean
> nothing next to the beauty and purity of the perfect network protocol
> design.
I was just replying to Dave, who reminded me that IPv6 is not v4 with
bigger addresses, t
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 01:14:52PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > *Really*? It bakes the endpoint MAC into the IP? Well, that's miserably
> > poor architecture design.
> >
>
> It can and it is a common default. It is not required.
>
> It's actually rather elegant architecture design for the goa
: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers
- Original Message -
> From: "james machado"
> 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.
An argument I've
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 20:38 UTC, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> From: "Owen DeLong"
>> > Did I mention I haven't implemented v6 yet? :-)
>>
>> No, you didn't. Perhaps you should spend some time learning about
>> it before you opine on how it should or should not be implemented.
>
> Perhaps. But that's
On 03/08/2011, at 11:25 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Mikael Abrahamsson"
>
>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> 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 sta
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 22:37:55 PDT, Joel Jaeggli said:
> there are 38453 ASes that appear in the DFZ this week and I don't see
> that number growing to 1 billion anytime soon.
Exactly. Right now, how many routes flap if Comcast drops a state's worth of
cable customers for a moment? What does *your*
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 10:00:37AM -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> Also good for customer privacy. LE can still subpoena ISP logs, but
> e-commerce sites can't track users quite as easily.
So... you're in that alternate universe populated by people who *aren't*
constantly logged onto facebook. Goo
On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
[...]
No, my point is that if you use RFC-4193, there's not really much benefit
from altering the prefix, so, nobody gets penalized and you can still have
static addresses.
[...]
If anyone is aware of any other widely-used applications in home/office
com
- Original Message -
> From: "Leo Vegoda"
> > *Really*? It bakes the endpoint MAC into the IP? Well, that's
> > miserably poor architecture design.
>
> The vast majority of people use Windows as an OS and Windows defaults
> to using RFC 4941 privacy extensions. I *think* it changes it ad
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> > Did I mention I haven't implemented v6 yet? :-)
>
> No, you didn't. Perhaps you should spend some time learning about
> it before you opine on how it should or should not be implemented.
Perhaps. But that's a SHOULD, not a MUST; it's possi
You wrote:
[...]
> > > c) outside parties *who are not the ISP or an LEO* will have a
> > > relatively harder time tying together two visits solely by the IP
> > > address.
> >
> > ROFL... Yeah, right... Because the MAC suffix won't do anything.
>
> Did I mention I haven't implemented v6 yet? :
On Aug 3, 2011, at 10:53 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Owen DeLong"
>
>> On Aug 3, 2011, at 6:55 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>> You guys aren't *near* paranoid enough. :-)
>>>
>>> If the ISP
>>>
>>> a) Assigns dynamic addresses to customers, and
>>> b) changes
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> On Aug 3, 2011, at 6:55 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> > You guys aren't *near* paranoid enough. :-)
> >
> > If the ISP
> >
> > a) Assigns dynamic addresses to customers, and
> > b) changes those IPs on a relatively short scale (days)
> >
> > then
>
On Aug 3, 2011, at 6:55 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Mikael Abrahamsson"
>
>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> 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 sta
Also good for customer privacy. LE can still subpoena ISP logs, but e-commerce
sites can't track users quite as easily.
-Bill
On Aug 3, 2011, at 9:55, "William Allen Simpson"
wrote:
> On 8/3/11 4:13 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I agree that autoconf is desirable. Now, ple
On 8/3/11 4:13 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I agree that autoconf is desirable. Now, please explain to me why it is
desirable for the address to change at random intervals from the customer
perspective? (i.e. why would one want dynamic rather than static auto
configuration?)
Because IPv6 was original
- Original Message -
> From: "Mikael Abrahamsson"
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > 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 pr
> > - 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.
>
> DHCP doesn't imply dynamic address. It implies customer doesn't have to
> configure an address him/he
On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
- 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.
DHCP doesn't imply dynamic address. It implies customer doesn't have t
On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
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.
Yes, I agree. I know people who choose provider based on the ava
On Aug 3, 2011, at 1:04 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
>>> 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*
> > 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
On Aug 3, 2011, at 12:14 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
>> 3) I think people do some of both. I think that if people can get static for
>> the
>> same price, they will choose static over dynamic. I think that some
>> will even choose to use their dynamic to run tunnels where they
>>
On Aug 2, 2011, at 9:52 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message
>
> , Blake Dunlap writes:
>> Or, alternately, don't care what your printer's ridiculously long IPv6 IP is
>> at this moment, (ULA/GUA/assigned: it really doesn't matter) and use mdns
>> like normal people. Otherwise we're ignoring
> 3) I think people do some of both. I think that if people can get static for
> the
> same price, they will choose static over dynamic. I think that some
> will even choose to use their dynamic to run tunnels where they
> can get static. You can get free static tunnels for IPv6
On Aug 2, 2011, at 9:56 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
>
> On 03/08/2011, at 1:20 PM, Jima wrote:
>
>> Alas, I will maintain that any household that multi-homes at this stage is,
>> indeed, abnormal.
>
>
> I'll go out on a limb and suggest that most people loathe their telcos with
> an undying venom
On 03/08/2011, at 1:20 PM, Jima wrote:
> Alas, I will maintain that any household that multi-homes at this stage is,
> indeed, abnormal.
I'll go out on a limb and suggest that most people loathe their telcos with
an undying venomous passion, and can think of nothing worse than dealing with
any
In message
, Blake Dunlap writes:
> Or, alternately, don't care what your printer's ridiculously long IPv6 IP is
> at this moment, (ULA/GUA/assigned: it really doesn't matter) and use mdns
> like normal people. Otherwise we're ignoring the forest for the trees, I
> don't expect to try to explain
On Aug 2, 2011, at 9:33 PM, Blake Dunlap wrote:
> Or, alternately, don't care what your printer's ridiculously long IPv6 IP is
> at this moment, (ULA/GUA/assigned: it really doesn't matter) and use mdns
> like normal people. Otherwise we're ignoring the forest for the trees, I
> don't expect to t
In message <4e38c59d.8000...@jima.tk>, Jima writes:
> On 2011-08-02 11:17, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >>
> >> en1: flags=8863 mtu 1500
> >>ether 60:33:4b:01:75:85
> >>inet6 fe80::6233:4bff:fe01:7585%en1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x5
> >>inet 192.168.191.223 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.1
Or, alternately, don't care what your printer's ridiculously long IPv6 IP is
at this moment, (ULA/GUA/assigned: it really doesn't matter) and use mdns
like normal people. Otherwise we're ignoring the forest for the trees, I
don't expect to try to explain to my grandma how to type in
2001:45ea:344b:
On 2011-08-02 11:17, Owen DeLong wrote:
en1: flags=8863 mtu 1500
ether 60:33:4b:01:75:85
inet6 fe80::6233:4bff:fe01:7585%en1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x5
inet 192.168.191.223 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.191.255
inet6 fd92:7065:b8e::6233:4bff:fe01:7585 prefix
On Aug 2, 2011, at 6:18 PM, james machado wrote:
>> I would argue that I am not an "abnormal" household by any definition other
>> than
>> my internet access and that even by that definition, I am not particularly
>> abnormal
>> where I live.
>>
>
> your based out of san jose, there might not
> I would argue that I am not an "abnormal" household by any definition other
> than
> my internet access and that even by that definition, I am not particularly
> abnormal
> where I live.
>
your based out of san jose, there might not be any other area like
that in the U.S. as far as connectivit
From your description below, I am pretty sure that one of the following is true:
1. Your service area covers ≤1% of the population of whatever state
or province you are in.
or 2. Your state or province has a population ≤1% of the US national
Nothing I can disagree with in your statements and I am not trying to
argumentative, but I know my customer base and I can assure you there is
not one one them that could tell you what
ARIN
Multi-home
BGP
OSPF
RA
or a host of other terms in your response are, let alone what they mean,
why they
On Aug 2, 2011, at 3:37 PM, james machado wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>>
>> 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 b
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
On Aug 2, 2011, at 3:37 PM, james machado wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
> 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.
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
>> 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 A
On 8/2/2011 4:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Aug 2, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
And just how are you going to make all of us small ISPs, or the big ones for
that matter, do that?
Well, if you want my business, you'll do it.
If not, I'll route around you as damage. If enough customers
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.
On Aug 2, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
> And just how are you going to make all of us small ISPs, or the big ones for
> that matter, do that?
Well, if you want my business, you'll do it.
If not, I'll route around you as damage. If enough customers approach the
problem this way, it wil
- Original Message -
> From: "james machado"
> 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.
An argument I've been making right along. Concern about what's happening
network-wise outside my ed
> 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 no
And just how are you going to make all of us small ISPs, or the big ones
for that matter, do that?
I don't disagree with you, but I think the conversation needs to
continue assuming that is not going to happen.
And that may not be what happens within a large organization that uses
private connec
that those addresses are static.
They can do this with a ULA prefix if they want (RFC 4193). It is both private
and most likely (really, very, very likely) unique. This assumes they only want
their printer or NAS to be accessible on their own local network.
Regards,
Leo
That is the case i
On Aug 2, 2011, at 10:28 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
> On Aug 2, 2011, at 10:17 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>>
>>> en1: flags=8863 mtu 1500
>>> ether 60:33:4b:01:75:85
>>> inet6 fe80::6233:4bff:fe01:7585%en1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x5
>>> inet 192.168.191.223 netmask 0xff00 broadca
On Aug 2, 2011, at 10:17 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> en1: flags=8863 mtu 1500
>> ether 60:33:4b:01:75:85
>> inet6 fe80::6233:4bff:fe01:7585%en1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x5
>> inet 192.168.191.223 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.191.255
>> inet6 fd92:7065:b8e::6233:4bff:f
>
> en1: flags=8863 mtu 1500
> ether 60:33:4b:01:75:85
> inet6 fe80::6233:4bff:fe01:7585%en1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x5
> inet 192.168.191.223 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.191.255
> inet6 fd92:7065:b8e::6233:4bff:fe01:7585 prefixlen 64 autoconf
> inet6 2001:4
You wrote:
> One point I often miss in the endless discussions wrt dynamic/static
> IPv6 with references to the dynamic IPv4 world, is the lack of RFC1918
> addressing for IPv6. The fact is that all residential users are used
> to, and depend on, static IPv4 addressing within their own network.
>
In message <877h6w9emi@nemi.mork.no>, =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn_Mork?= writes:
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ writes:
>
> > I will like to know, from those deploying IPv6 services to residential
> > customers, if you are planning to provide static or dynamic IPv6 prefixes.
> >
> > Just to be clear, I'm f
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ writes:
> I will like to know, from those deploying IPv6 services to residential
> customers, if you are planning to provide static or dynamic IPv6 prefixes.
>
> Just to be clear, I'm for static prefix delegation to residential
> customers, however I heard that some ISPs are
Jordi,
We're doing:
- dynamic /64 on the link to the customer (PPPoE at this stage) so that PPP
directly to a PC will work. (ie. we run SLAAC on this).
- static /56 for the customer via DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation.
Given our architecture a dynamic /56 would have been better (smaller routing
tabl
-- jer...@unfix.org wrote: ---
It of course all depends what the adversary is and what you are
protecting against ;)
--
Thanks for all the responses. It is (and has been for the last 14 years on
nanog) the best way for me to learn. :-) I am only p
On Jul 27, 2011, at 6:14 AM, Sascha Lenz wrote:
> Hi Owen,
>
>>>
Hi all,
I will like to know, from those deploying IPv6 services to residential
customers, if you are planning to provide static or dynamic IPv6 prefixes.
Just to be clear, I'm for static prefix dele
On 2011-07-27 20:27 , Scott Weeks wrote:
>
>
> --- jer...@unfix.org wrote:
> From: Jeroen Massar
> On 2011-07-27 03:25 , Scott Weeks wrote:
>> matt.addi...@lists.evilgeni.us wrote: -
>>> [..] 1: http://panopticlick.eff.org/
>>
>> All you need to do with what that sit
--- jer...@unfix.org wrote:
From: Jeroen Massar
On 2011-07-27 03:25 , Scott Weeks wrote:
> matt.addi...@lists.evilgeni.us wrote: -
>> [..] 1: http://panopticlick.eff.org/
>
> All you need to do with what that site says is write a sh script that
> deletes and then cre
--- valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:25:30 PDT, Scott Weeks said:
> (who's still bristling from the last discussion about this where Valdis kept
> saying "Privacy is dead. Get used to it."
Man, leave one smiley off and it follows you for life. ;)
Hi Owen,
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I will like to know, from those deploying IPv6 services to residential
>>> customers, if you are planning to provide static or dynamic IPv6 prefixes.
>>>
>>> Just to be clear, I'm for static prefix delegation to residential
>>> customers, however I heard that som
On 2011-07-27 03:25 , Scott Weeks wrote:
> matt.addi...@lists.evilgeni.us wrote: -
>> [..] 1: http://panopticlick.eff.org/
>
> All you need to do with what that site says is write a sh script that
> deletes and then creates the same user.
And there you sprung into a tr
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 18:25:30 PDT, Scott Weeks said:
> (who's still bristling from the last discussion about this where Valdis kept
> saying "Privacy is dead. Get used to it."
Man, leave one smiley off and it follows you for life. ;)
http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2011-May/036270.htm
On Jul 26, 2011, at 6:10 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
> On Jul 26, 2011, at 8:29 PM, Matt Addison wrote:
>
>> On Jul 26, 2011, at 20:08, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>>> There's a subtle but significant difference between what cookies give you,
>>> which is "This is the same entity that visit
matt.addi...@lists.evilgeni.us wrote: -
On Jul 26, 2011, at 20:08, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> There's a subtle but significant difference between what cookies give you,
> which is "This is the same entity that visited our page at 7:48PM last
> Tuesday", and what
On Jul 26, 2011, at 8:29 PM, Matt Addison wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2011, at 20:08, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>> There's a subtle but significant difference between what cookies give you,
>> which is "This is the same entity that visited our page at 7:48PM last
>> Tuesday", and what easily trackab
In message <4e2efacc.4010...@thebaughers.com>, Jason Baugher writes:
> On 7/26/2011 12:06 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > On Jul 26, 2011, at 8:05 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> >
> >> On 2011-07-26 16:58 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I will like to know, from those deploying IPv6
On Jul 26, 2011, at 20:08, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> There's a subtle but significant difference between what cookies give you,
> which is "This is the same entity that visited our page at 7:48PM last
> Tuesday", and what easily trackable IP addresses give you, which is "This is
> an
> enti
On Jul 26, 2011, at 5:06 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:02:14 PDT, Leo Vegoda said:
>> Do German web sites not track users with cookies, then?
>
> There's a subtle but significant difference between what cookies give you,
> which is "This is the same entity that visi
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 16:02:14 PDT, Leo Vegoda said:
> Do German web sites not track users with cookies, then?
There's a subtle but significant difference between what cookies give you,
which is "This is the same entity that visited our page at 7:48PM last
Tuesday", and what easily trackable IP addr
On Jul 26, 2011, at 4:02 PM, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> You wrote:
>>> Also, one can argue that a dynamic prefix facilitates privacy Š
>>
>> In Germany, there is significant political pushback against the idea to
>> give residential mom+pop static prefixed for that very reason.
>
> Do German web sites
On Jul 26, 2011, at 3:30 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> Actually all addresses are dynamic. There are just different lease
> periods. Year vs day or hours.
>
An interesting way to look at it. Perhaps arguably true with IPv6.
However, one must face the reality that at some levels, it's year wit
On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 11:18 -0400, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Also, one can argue that a dynamic prefix facilitates privacy
Not really - not unless they use privacy addresses or DHCPv6 as well.
Regards, K.
--
~~~
Karl Auer
You wrote:
> > Also, one can argue that a dynamic prefix facilitates privacy Š
>
> In Germany, there is significant political pushback against the idea to
> give residential mom+pop static prefixed for that very reason.
Do German web sites not track users with cookies, then?
Regards,
Leo
Actually all addresses are dynamic. There are just different lease
periods. Year vs day or hours.
One can also hand out *multiple* prefixes. Ones with a lease period
of year and one with a lease period in hours and let the customer
use the most appropriate one for the particular usage needs.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:18:37AM -0400, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Also, one can argue that a dynamic prefix facilitates privacy
In Germany, there is significant political pushback against the idea to
give residential mom+pop static prefixed for that very reason.
I seriously doubt that any
On Jul 26, 2011, at 12:28 PM, Sascha Lenz wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I will like to know, from those deploying IPv6 services to residential
>> customers, if you are planning to provide static or dynamic IPv6 prefixes.
>>
>> Just to be clear, I'm for static prefix delegation to resident
Hi,
> Hi all,
>
> I will like to know, from those deploying IPv6 services to residential
> customers, if you are planning to provide static or dynamic IPv6 prefixes.
>
> Just to be clear, I'm for static prefix delegation to residential
> customers, however I heard that some ISPs are doing dynam
On 7/26/2011 12:06 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jul 26, 2011, at 8:05 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2011-07-26 16:58 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Hi all,
I will like to know, from those deploying IPv6 services to residential
customers, if you are planning to provide static or dynamic IPv6 prefixe
On Jul 26, 2011, at 8:05 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On 2011-07-26 16:58 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I will like to know, from those deploying IPv6 services to residential
>> customers, if you are planning to provide static or dynamic IPv6 prefixes.
>>
We (Hurricane Electric)
Just like the song: "...you know is sad but true..". ISPs and a few vendors
offers IPv6 cappabilities as an add-on on its commercial portfolios.
For the static v6 address assignment, applies the same. Even if for users
represents advantages on having it's own unique address (i.e. in order to
enter
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Mensaje original-
> De: Cameron Byrne
> Responder a:
> Fecha: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:34:36 -0700
> Para: Jordi Palet Martinez
> CC: NANOG list
> Asunto: Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers
only the choice of
> cellular broadband instead of DSL, cable or fiber.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Mensaje original-
> De: Cameron Byrne
> Responder a:
> Fecha: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 08:34:36 -0700
> Para: Jordi Palet Martinez
list
Asunto: Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers
>
>On Jul 26, 2011 7:58 AM, "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ"
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I will like to know, from those deploying IPv6 services to residential
>> customers, if y
On 7/26/11 7:58 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I will like to know, from those deploying IPv6 services to residential
> customers, if you are planning to provide static or dynamic IPv6 prefixes.
>
Static everywhere for me, including residential customers.
~Seth
On Jul 26, 2011 7:58 AM, "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ"
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I will like to know, from those deploying IPv6 services to residential
> customers, if you are planning to provide static or dynamic IPv6 prefixes.
>
> Just to be clear, I'm for static prefix delegation to residential
> custome
-Mensaje original-
De: Jeroen Massar
Organización: Unfix
Responder a:
Fecha: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 17:05:41 +0200
Para: Jordi Palet Martinez
CC: NANOG list
Asunto: Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers
>On 2011-07-26 16:58 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>&g
On 2011-07-26 16:58 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I will like to know, from those deploying IPv6 services to residential
> customers, if you are planning to provide static or dynamic IPv6 prefixes.
>
> Just to be clear, I'm for static prefix delegation to residential
> customers, ho
Hi all,
I will like to know, from those deploying IPv6 services to residential
customers, if you are planning to provide static or dynamic IPv6 prefixes.
Just to be clear, I'm for static prefix delegation to residential
customers, however I heard that some ISPs are doing dynamic delegations,
the
90 matches
Mail list logo
