[arin-discuss] Trying to Understand IPV6

[Dan White]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dan White [mailto:dwhite at olp.net]
>Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 4:29 PM
>To: Mike Lieberman
>Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
>Subject: Re: Trying to Understand IPV6
>
>>Just because we have the numbers does not mean we should distribute them.
>
>That actually sounds pretty risky to me, as a business decision, in a
>competitive service provider environment.

On 13/09/10 17:02 -0600, Mike Lieberman wrote:
>Dan,
>Huh? I never suggested we should restrict giving out addresses that were
>requested, only that a /48 of public IP to my 96yo mother who is quite happy
>with her NAT'ed little IP world make no sense.

And I'm not referring to what a customer asks for, the day you turn IPv6 up
for them, but rather what's going to break down the road because you may
have been short sighted in your address allocation, or encouraged them to
use NAT with IPv6 ("I don't know why I would really need that many
addresses!").

When your 96yo mother happens to order a service-in-a-box from some remote
provider, and it breaks because she's using NAT, or she doesn't have unique
addressing, then she's either going to call you and tell you to fix her
connection (because the box didn't work on your ISP and that
service-in-a-box vendor told her it was your fault), or she's just going to
go with another provider because "I have so many problems with your service
and I just want it to work."

I've actually had a glimpse of this type of response from customers who
can't, say, make a VPN connection back to some server in Dallas, and were
told their local service provider was at fault. In such a scenario, I feel
confident that the problem is not with us, since we don't do port blocking,
and don't NAT. We do offer a NAT'd router inside a modem for customers who
don't have their own router, but that's not a configuration we recommend,
and it's not typical of these types of customers any way.

-- 
Dan White