Re: I-D Action: draft-mishra-6man-variable-slaac-01.txt

[Simon Hobson <[e-mail]>]

Ca By <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> I think most of this comes down to can I save $18000 per year over a customer base of > 16 million.  Penny pinching at its extreme.

> Yet another person missing the point and harkening back to the idea that anyone is trying to conserve  ipv6 addresses. 
> 
> Please stop. 

Have you heard of the expression "don't shoot the messenger" ?
People are telling you what they observe. Right or wrong, there **ARE** ISPs out there where "bottom line" is the only thing they care about, and customer experience come last on the list of priorities.

You'd think that an ISP selling (more or less) only DSL services which tend to be "always on" by their nature would achieve no saving by having dynamic address allocation vs static - but they still cling to the belief that a fixed IP is something that either costs them more, or at the very least is something they can screw the customer over.

You keep telling people that this is "not a thing" without presenting any evidence whatsoever. We all know that the IPv6 address space is "very big", but the evidence is there that some ISPs are not treating it the way you claim they all will. You've already been given stats that show that a significant number of ISPs are choosing to only supply a /64 when it has always been recommended practice to offer a larger allocation. And you've also been given evidence that some ISPs would offer a much smaller (even a /127) allocation if they could get away with it.

Simon