v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)]

[jbates at brightok.net (Jack Bates)]

Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
> Currently with v4 I have one (majority) of customers where they have 
> dynamic addresses.  For those I'm happy to use PD - but my point was 
> that people are starting to assume that v6 WILL mean static allocations 
> for all customers.  This is my fear, is NOT being able to use PD for the 
> "residential grade" customers.  Having to provide static allocations is 
> a problem if I have multiple POPs in a geographic region as I can't 
> summarise and get the redundancy I want.

Summary of IPv6 is easy enough, and you'll probably assign at least two 
/48 networks to a pop, one for infrastructure and one for PD. I'm sure 
there will be more.

> (If I commit to a customer they have a static range then I can't easily 
> change it on them - esp if they've done things like used the addresses 
> statically in DNS etc as our customers are want to do).

There is a difference between static assignments to an interface for 
technical reasons and giving a customer a "static". Even if the customer 
technically has a static address, you are still allowed to change it so 
long as you are not giving him a static address. It's just a long term 
dynamic prefix. Renumbering IPv6 is a cake walk compared to IPv4, as it 
is somewhat more friendly to existing connections than IPv4 (if using 
stateless autoconfig).

> Has anyone out there actually done an implentation, across DSL of PD?  
> If you have PLEASE let me know on list/off list/by dead letter drop in a 
> park.  Especially interested in CPE etc.

Cable is much further along on CPE than most home routers. Outside of 
the Apple Airport, I think there's only a handful of CPE home routers 
with v6 capabilities.

Here's someone's experience with a real home v6 implementation from ISP 
side to home router. http://geekmerc.livejournal.com/699.html


Jack