[v6ops] Re: Dynamic addresses

[Daryll Swer <[e-mail]>]

>
> Of course. But if you provides fixed net per customer, you can't charge
> an additional fee for fixed net anymore. This is what many ISPs want to
> do and already exist with IPv4 - often reasoned by questionable
> arguments.
>

We don't charge for IPv6, as the goal is to push global adoption for IPv6.
This means /56 static free, /48 for enterprise static, free. Anything more,
is charge-able, sure.

Any ISP charging additional for IPv6 is just road-blocking IPv6.

I'm not sure what you're proposing, Marco. But my stance on the matter is
simple: Get rid of dynamic prefixes in IPv6 production.

*--*
Best Regards
Daryll Swer
Website: daryllswer.com
<https://mailtrack.io/l/278530ee72081c922a0dfc2256f6842a8c8273fb?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.daryllswer.com&u=2153471&signature=f048939dda4f1363>


On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 at 20:46, Marco Moock <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Am Tue, 13 Aug 2024 12:15:06 +0530
> schrieb Daryll Swer <[e-mail]>:
>
> > What do you mean by RA prefix lifetime matching PD lease time = no
> > problems?
>
> If implemented correctly, there shouldn't be any problems.
>
> > If ISP-side, PD lease time = 24 hours, and RA prefix lifetime = 24
> > hours on CE side, and the genius ISP does what it does best, and
> > flips the prefixes within <24 hours of elapsed time for the session,
> > either due to scripting on their systems that does PPPoE or DHCP
> > disconnect per 6-12 hours (yes, there are many ISPs doing this
> > globally), or as we discussed on this thread, power issues (varies
> > wildly by environments and economies), the hosts on the LAN side of
> > the CE will still have old prefixes with original 24 hour pref.
> > lifetime value.
>
> They the ISP is the problem because the prefix doesn't have the
> lifetime they specify.
>
> > > A router can also extend that to avoid connection interrupts.
> >
> > What do you mean by this?
>
> According to the DHCPv6 RFC, it is possible to extend the lifetime of
> PD.
>
> |Each address or delegated prefix assigned to the client has
> |associated preferred and valid lifetimes specified by the server.  To
> |request an extension of the lifetimes assigned to an address or
> |delegated prefix, the client sends a Renew message to the server.
>
> If the ISP implements that properly, it should work, but as you said,
> strange ISPs exist.
>
> > As I originally said, this (dynamic prefixes) also makes it virtually
> > impossible for the home-user to even host basic SSH to their devices
> > on the LAN or even the router itself.
>
> If they are customers of bad ISPs, this is indeed the case.
>
> > I thought we are trying to restore the end-to-end/peer-to-peer
> > principle with IPv6, not further push down NAT66/NPTv6 to combat 24/7
> > renumbering of the ISP with ULAs and the like. In IPv4, changing IP
> > /32 addresses were masked (literally) with masquerade.
>
> e2e exists again in most cases.
>
> > And surely, I hope, nobody is suggesting the folks who authored
> > BCOP-690 didn't do their homework. The BCOP clearly explains WHY
> > dynamic prefixes == harmful:
> >
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-690/#5-2--why-non-persistent-assignments-are-considered-harmful
>
> For that case the DHCPv6 PD server could remember that the old prefix
> is still valid. I dunno if such implementations exist, but technically
> it would be possible.
>
> > Even if we ignore ALL the technical issues with dynamic prefixes,
> > dynamic prefixes only increases costs and complexity for law
> > enforcement compliance on the ISP-side anyway. In short,
> > persistent/static ia_pd is a win-win for both sides (ISP and CE
> > owner).
>
> Of course. But if you provides fixed net per customer, you can't charge
> an additional fee for fixed net anymore. This is what many ISPs want to
> do and already exist with IPv4 - often reasoned by questionable
> arguments.
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>