Re: [v6ops] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 25/10/19 10:14, Philip Homburg wrote:
>> how is that an advantage for the end user?
>> it might be for the ISP. but that's the entity that cannot give stable 
>> addressing in the first place...
> 
> If routing IPv6 is cheaper than CGNAT IPv4 then either the ISP can offer
> higher bandwidth for the same price or reduce prices.
> 
> In any case, very often the user doesn't have a choice. I would like to
> have reverse DNS delegated for all my IPv6 prefixes. That is just not going
> to happen.
> 
>>> In the case of certain banks that support IPv6, the advantage is that
>>> there is no risk that multiple households will share a single IPv4 
>> address.
>>
>> that's a solved problem. security is done at a higher layer regardless.
> 
> Not for that particular bank. They are very much interested in IP addresses.
> 
>> if IPv6 provides no benefit over IPv4 then why?
>> 32 + 16 > 128.
>> or if we allow IPv6 to have no benefit over IPv4 I could rather say.
> 
> The benefit of IPv6 is that IPv6 addresses are almost for free, whereas a
> single IPv4 address costs a significant chunk of money (compared to other
> costs).
> 
>> The changes in the transport and application layers are already 
>> happening (e.g. QUIC).
> 
> If QUIC can deal with this flash renumbering problem then it would be nice
> to see a report on that. I'm very curious how to would work.

THe best they could do is to try to *circumvent* the problem while
keeping all the mess in the network layer. That'd certainly be a bad option.


-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492