[v6ops] Re: Dynamic addresses

[Brian Candler <[e-mail]>]

On 12/08/2024 10:06, Daryll Swer wrote:
> IPv4 doesn't have this issue. When a customer pays for a static 
> *IPv4*, that IP is permanently static even across BNGs groups 
> (automation in their backend would move the IPs around if required, 
> god forbid, it's manually done).
>
> But come to IPv6 and most (exception always exists) ISPs globally, 
> refuse to give a /56 ia_pd static free or paid. I'm personally really 
> tired of this attitude from ISPs, i.e. the IPv4-centric attitude.

If a customer pays for static IPv4 (and the ISP offers it), they get 
static IPv4. If they pay for static IPv6 (and the ISP offers it), they 
get static IPv6.

I still don't see anything specific to IPv6 here. It's just about 
product offerings in different markets.

In some marketplaces or countries or price brackets, ISPs don't offer 
static IPv4; and in some they don't offer static IPv6. I don't believe 
you can mandate a particular service to be available in a particular 
country by RFC.  If you try to, your RFC will be ignored, and hence 
irrelevant.

What you *can* do is document what the problems and consequences are of 
dynamic IPv6 allocation to end users, and document the solutions or 
workarounds - one of which is that the problems go away if the ISP 
provides a static IPv6 allocation.