IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document - draft v.2 for review.
Dear RIPE IPv6 WG, As promised at BCOP TF meeting on Monday, the co-authors present at the RIPE74 meeting gathered on Tuesday afternoon and did some editorial work, addressing majority of the comments and suggestions we got from the community based on first version of the draft. Draft version 2 is now available for reading at https://sinog.si/docs/draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v2.pdf We'll have a short "lightning talk" in Thursday IPv6 WG session, please go and read the document (those that have enough time and energy), so we get more feedback and input for further improvements (if needed). See you all in couple of hours! For co-authors team, Jan Žorž
On Thu, 11 May 2017, Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote:
Dear RIPE IPv6 WG,
As promised at BCOP TF meeting on Monday, the co-authors present at the RIPE74 meeting gathered on Tuesday afternoon and did some editorial work, addressing majority of the comments and suggestions we got from the community based on first version of the draft.
Draft version 2 is now available for reading at https://sinog.si/docs/draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v2.pdf
We'll have a short "lightning talk" in Thursday IPv6 WG session, please go and read the document (those that have enough time and energy), so we get more feedback and input for further improvements (if needed).
See you all in couple of hours!
Reading this and writing as I read it through: "IPv6 is not the same as IPv4. In IPv6 you assign a number of “n” /64 prefixes to each end-customer site, so they are able to have as many subnets as they wish. " I think this immediately leads the reader wrong. This should be about sites getting a larger prefix, and THEN out of this, they use /64s. So while above is technically true, from a viewpoint of making the reader understand better the hierarchy, I propose above sentence to be: "IPv6 is not the same as IPv4. In IPv6 you assign a large prefix to each end-customer site, so they are able to have as many subnets (/64s) as they need." The /64 for cellular phones should not be in the executive summary. 4. In IPv4, it's not only perception of scarcity, there *is* scarcity. 4. I think I did the calculation and if you have 8B /48s, you still have only consumed around 1/10000th of the IPv6 space. I would use this instead of "480 years". 2^33 is ~8B. 48-33 is 15. So /48 for 8B people uses a /15. Take that down to one of the /3s we have, and it's a /12. 2^12 is 4096. So One /48 per person on earth uses 1/4000th of the currently used /3. So even with inefficient addressing this is not a problem. 4.1.2. Windows PCs CAN do DHCPv6-PD, if they have Internet connection sharing turned on. This worked already in Windows Vista, 10 years ago. However, I understand that this is not the point you're trying to make. 4.2.3. Can't we use the "STRONGLY DISCOURAGED" to use less than /56 ? 5.x I have heard of online gamers being ddos:ed so that someone else gains competitive advantage. It might be good to mention this drawback of persistent prefixes. Good document, I'll refer to it a lot because I keep having discussions with people in different forums about customer prefix size. Thanks! -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
Hi Mikael, Responses below, in-line. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: ipv6-wg <ipv6-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Organización: People's Front Against WWW Responder a: <swmike@swm.pp.se> Fecha: jueves, 11 de mayo de 2017, 6:57 Para: Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> CC: "ipv6-wg@ripe.net" <ipv6-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document - draft v.2 for review. On Thu, 11 May 2017, Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote: > Dear RIPE IPv6 WG, > > As promised at BCOP TF meeting on Monday, the co-authors present at the > RIPE74 meeting gathered on Tuesday afternoon and did some editorial > work, addressing majority of the comments and suggestions we got from > the community based on first version of the draft. > > Draft version 2 is now available for reading at > https://sinog.si/docs/draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v2.pdf > > We'll have a short "lightning talk" in Thursday IPv6 WG session, please > go and read the document (those that have enough time and energy), so we > get more feedback and input for further improvements (if needed). > > See you all in couple of hours! Reading this and writing as I read it through: "IPv6 is not the same as IPv4. In IPv6 you assign a number of “n” /64 prefixes to each end-customer site, so they are able to have as many subnets as they wish. " I think this immediately leads the reader wrong. This should be about sites getting a larger prefix, and THEN out of this, they use /64s. So while above is technically true, from a viewpoint of making the reader understand better the hierarchy, I propose above sentence to be: "IPv6 is not the same as IPv4. In IPv6 you assign a large prefix to each end-customer site, so they are able to have as many subnets (/64s) as they need." [Jordi] Fully agree, thanks! The /64 for cellular phones should not be in the executive summary. [Jordi] Not sure about this one, it is a short sentence and we want to make sure to capture all the they key things in the first page, as know that unfortunately, most people will not read the rest … 4. In IPv4, it's not only perception of scarcity, there *is* scarcity. 4. I think I did the calculation and if you have 8B /48s, you still have only consumed around 1/10000th of the IPv6 space. I would use this instead of "480 years". 2^33 is ~8B. 48-33 is 15. So /48 for 8B people uses a /15. Take that down to one of the /3s we have, and it's a /12. 2^12 is 4096. So One /48 per person on earth uses 1/4000th of the currently used /3. So even with inefficient addressing this is not a problem. [Jordi] We will think about this 4.1.2. Windows PCs CAN do DHCPv6-PD, if they have Internet connection sharing turned on. This worked already in Windows Vista, 10 years ago. However, I understand that this is not the point you're trying to make. [Jordi] We can say something anyway to make the text more accurate. 4.2.3. Can't we use the "STRONGLY DISCOURAGED" to use less than /56 ? [Jordi] I think we should do that. 5.x I have heard of online gamers being ddos:ed so that someone else gains competitive advantage. It might be good to mention this drawback of persistent prefixes. [Jordi] However, it seems to me that if this happens during a “gamming” session, it is the same for non-persistent prefixes, right? I don’t think you change your prefix while you’re playing, or I’m missing your point? Good document, I'll refer to it a lot because I keep having discussions with people in different forums about customer prefix size. Thanks! -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
On Thu, 11 May 2017, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
[Jordi] However, it seems to me that if this happens during a “gamming” session, it is the same for non-persistent prefixes, right? I don’t think you change your prefix while you’re playing, or I’m missing your point?
Correct, but if your prefix is not persistent then you can change it right before the game and at least whoever is trying to ddos you have to get updated information. It's not like you have had the same prefix for the past 3 years. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
I see that, but it will work only if the ISP provides a “button” so you can get the prefix changed, or the lease time is so short that you can make sure that rebooting your router you get a new prefix, so I don’t really see that. If the ISP provides the button, then it will work the same for persistent prefixes, so you get the advantages of “both” choices. This will also work for people that still considers persistent prefix = lack of privacy. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: ipv6-wg <ipv6-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Organización: People's Front Against WWW Responder a: <swmike@swm.pp.se> Fecha: sábado, 13 de mayo de 2017, 12:41 Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> CC: "ipv6-wg@ripe.net" <ipv6-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document - draft v.2 for review. On Thu, 11 May 2017, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > [Jordi] However, it seems to me that if this happens during a “gamming” > session, it is the same for non-persistent prefixes, right? I don’t > think you change your prefix while you’re playing, or I’m missing your > point? Correct, but if your prefix is not persistent then you can change it right before the game and at least whoever is trying to ddos you have to get updated information. It's not like you have had the same prefix for the past 3 years. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
On Sat, 13 May 2017, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I see that, but it will work only if the ISP provides a “button” so you can get the prefix changed, or the lease time is so short that you can make sure that rebooting your router you get a new prefix, so I don’t really see that.
... or if you do a DHCP release and change your DUID and then renew. So this can be done purely on the basis of standard DHCPv6 mechanisms with an ISP that provides a "semi-static" prefix (which is very common in my market at least). -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
Hi, On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 06:57:05AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
4. In IPv4, it's not only perception of scarcity, there *is* scarcity.
4. I think I did the calculation and if you have 8B /48s, you still have only consumed around 1/10000th of the IPv6 space. I would use this instead of "480 years". 2^33 is ~8B. 48-33 is 15. So /48 for 8B people uses a /15. Take that down to one of the /3s we have, and it's a /12. 2^12 is 4096. So One /48 per person on earth uses 1/4000th of the currently used /3. So even with inefficient addressing this is not a problem.
The combination of "people will be using multiple ISPs simultaneously" and "large networks will be hellishly inefficient wrt /48 usage due to internal aggregation" (which RIR policies permit) this is not plenty as it looks like. A waste factor of 1000 in a network with many layers of aggregation (BRAS, POP, City, Region, Country) might seem gross, but we'll see that. Look at the HD ratio tables...
4.2.3. Can't we use the "STRONGLY DISCOURAGED" to use less than /56 ?
Works for me :) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> writes: Hi,
Draft version 2 is now available for reading at https://sinog.si/docs/draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v2.pdf
I like but I don't see it happening. 1. Stable Addresses - Data protection people will have a hart attack when they read this. As will many customers. Don't get me wrong I *do* want a stable prefix at home but many people don't. Changing addresses gives them some pseudo anonymity and the warm feeling that they are not traceable and secure. And stable addresses are a way to make money. sys4 has a office in Munich and VDSL from M-Net. We pay extra for one stable IPv4 address but they wont hand out a stable IPv6 prefix. If you want stable v6 you have to buy their SDSL products which are way more expensive. We don't want to run any service in the office. We just want stable addresses for equipment and some training / lab VMs in the office. 2. Prefix length. I totally agree: Handout a /48 or /56. But this doesn't happen right now. And I don't think provider who have v6 now wont change their ways of doing things. I'm a customer of Kabel Deutschland an I can get either DS-Lite with a /64 or a public IPv4 Address (I chose the later an tunnel my own IPv6). For some CPEs (provided by KDG) they handout a /62. A friend recently told be about another provider handing out /57. Unfortunately the competitors are not much better. Then there are the smalltown providers providing FTTH[1] who think that becoming an ISP is easy. They don't become an LIR, they get a /2x from their upstream and I guess they wont get much more then a /48 *if* they do implement IPv6 (but right now NAT seems to work to well and people are happy that they have faster internet then before). Jens [1] Which is not alwas FTTH. But people know the name from the news. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Foelderichstr. 40 | 13595 Berlin, Germany | +49-151-18721264 | | http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jenslink@quux.de | --------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Jens, Regarding the stable addresses, I understand what you mean, but data protection people need to realize that with a non-persistent prefix, as it last for several hours/days/months (depending on each ISP policy), people can also be “tracked”, and you will not find an ISP that change the prefix every few minutes, because that will break the customers Internet functionality, right? Not to forget that right now there are much better ways to track people from browsers/big data that believing that addresses identify people. This is a different discussion, but I think is totally wrong to consider IP addresses as personal data, because an address is not a perfect way to identify people. Regarding prefix length, you’re right in part, but I did a survey that shows that many ISPs are doing it right, we just need to wake up those that do it wrong to improve their deployments. Market competition will help here: because some do correctly, customers may change provider when others do it wrong. Here is the last presentation of the survey: https://ripe73.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/plenary/ Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: ipv6-wg <ipv6-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Jens Link <lists@quux.de> Organización: - Responder a: <lists@quux.de> Fecha: sábado, 13 de mayo de 2017, 10:16 Para: "ipv6-wg@ripe.net" <ipv6-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document - draft v.2 for review. Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> writes: Hi, > Draft version 2 is now available for reading at > https://sinog.si/docs/draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v2.pdf I like but I don't see it happening. 1. Stable Addresses - Data protection people will have a hart attack when they read this. As will many customers. Don't get me wrong I *do* want a stable prefix at home but many people don't. Changing addresses gives them some pseudo anonymity and the warm feeling that they are not traceable and secure. And stable addresses are a way to make money. sys4 has a office in Munich and VDSL from M-Net. We pay extra for one stable IPv4 address but they wont hand out a stable IPv6 prefix. If you want stable v6 you have to buy their SDSL products which are way more expensive. We don't want to run any service in the office. We just want stable addresses for equipment and some training / lab VMs in the office. 2. Prefix length. I totally agree: Handout a /48 or /56. But this doesn't happen right now. And I don't think provider who have v6 now wont change their ways of doing things. I'm a customer of Kabel Deutschland an I can get either DS-Lite with a /64 or a public IPv4 Address (I chose the later an tunnel my own IPv6). For some CPEs (provided by KDG) they handout a /62. A friend recently told be about another provider handing out /57. Unfortunately the competitors are not much better. Then there are the smalltown providers providing FTTH[1] who think that becoming an ISP is easy. They don't become an LIR, they get a /2x from their upstream and I guess they wont get much more then a /48 *if* they do implement IPv6 (but right now NAT seems to work to well and people are happy that they have faster internet then before). Jens [1] Which is not alwas FTTH. But people know the name from the news. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Foelderichstr. 40 | 13595 Berlin, Germany | +49-151-18721264 | | http://blog.quux.de | jabber: jenslink@quux.de | --------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
On 13/05/2017 10:16, Jens Link wrote:
Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> writes:
Hi,
Hi,
Draft version 2 is now available for reading at https://sinog.si/docs/draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v2.pdf
I like but I don't see it happening.
1. Stable Addresses - Data protection people will have a hart attack when they read this. As will many customers. Don't get me wrong I *do* want a stable prefix at home but many people don't. Changing addresses gives them some pseudo anonymity and the warm feeling that they are not traceable and secure.
Data protection people will have to learn how technology works and stop breaking IPv6 deployments with enforcing bad practices from IPv4 world. WE dynamically changed IPv4 address because we started running out of them, not to ensure anonimity. That warm fuzzy feeling is made-up collateral damage that was never even a intent ;) As Jordi mentioned, traceability starts on L7 and it doesn't matter how much you change addresses, you'll be trackable. For reference, try it on https://panopticlick.eff.org/ Click, change address, click again.
And stable addresses are a way to make money. sys4 has a office in Munich and VDSL from M-Net. We pay extra for one stable IPv4 address but they wont hand out a stable IPv6 prefix. If you want stable v6 you have to buy their SDSL products which are way more expensive. We don't want to run any service in the office. We just want stable addresses for equipment and some training / lab VMs in the office.
We are documenting best operational practice here, not a bad one.
2. Prefix length. I totally agree: Handout a /48 or /56. But this doesn't happen right now. And I don't think provider who have v6 now wont change their ways of doing things. I'm a customer of Kabel Deutschland an I can get either DS-Lite with a /64 or a public IPv4 Address (I chose the later an tunnel my own IPv6). For some CPEs (provided by KDG) they handout a /62. A friend recently told be about another provider handing out /57. Unfortunately the competitors are not much better.
Again, we are documenting best operational practice here, not a bad one.
Then there are the smalltown providers providing FTTH[1] who think that becoming an ISP is easy. They don't become an LIR, they get a /2x from their upstream and I guess they wont get much more then a /48 *if* they do implement IPv6 (but right now NAT seems to work to well and people are happy that they have faster internet then before).
<shrug> Can't fix those either ;) If operators did wrong things and/or taken wrong decisions when deploying IPv6, then it might be worth sending them this BCOP document (when we reach the stable version), maybe they start thinking about it and make their deployment better. Cheers, Jan
Hi,
On 13 May 2017, at 18:41, Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> wrote:
On 13/05/2017 10:16, Jens Link wrote:
Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> writes:
Draft version 2 is now available for reading at https://sinog.si/docs/draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v2.pdf
I like but I don't see it happening.
1. Stable Addresses - Data protection people will have a hart attack when they read this. As will many customers. Don't get me wrong I *do* want a stable prefix at home but many people don't. Changing addresses gives them some pseudo anonymity and the warm feeling that they are not traceable and secure.
Data protection people will have to learn how technology works and stop breaking IPv6 deployments with enforcing bad practices from IPv4 world. WE dynamically changed IPv4 address because we started running out of them, not to ensure anonimity. That warm fuzzy feeling is made-up collateral damage that was never even a intent ;)
As Jordi mentioned, traceability starts on L7 and it doesn't matter how much you change addresses, you'll be trackable.
For reference, try it on https://panopticlick.eff.org/
Click, change address, click again.
But we should not do anything to preclude privacy-enhancing methods being applied at any layer. I would argue that the BCOP text should say: a) ISPs are encouraged to support both stable (persistent) and privacy-oriented (non-persistent) prefixes as options for customers; b) stable/persistent prefixes are recommended as the default, in the absence of legal requirements to the contrary in any specific country. I’d also note that the biggest UK IPv6 deployment is a “sticky” /56 to residences; it’s hard for an ISP to guarantee a lifetime stable prefix, but they can take steps to minimise the likelihood of a change being needed. Tim
I like that … In fact is consistent with what I told to Mikael, that the ISP will need to have a “button” to allow the customer to decide what they want to do by default or change the prefix at a given time. Saludos, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: ipv6-wg <ipv6-wg-bounces@ripe.net> en nombre de Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Responder a: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Fecha: lunes, 15 de mayo de 2017, 12:21 Para: Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> CC: <ipv6-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document - draft v.2 for review. Hi, > On 13 May 2017, at 18:41, Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> wrote: > > On 13/05/2017 10:16, Jens Link wrote: >> Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> writes: >>> Draft version 2 is now available for reading at >>> https://sinog.si/docs/draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v2.pdf >> >> I like but I don't see it happening. >> >> 1. Stable Addresses - Data protection people will have a hart attack >> when they read this. As will many customers. Don't get me wrong I >> *do* want a stable prefix at home but many people don't. Changing >> addresses gives them some pseudo anonymity and the warm feeling that >> they are not traceable and secure. > > Data protection people will have to learn how technology works and stop > breaking IPv6 deployments with enforcing bad practices from IPv4 world. > WE dynamically changed IPv4 address because we started running out of > them, not to ensure anonimity. That warm fuzzy feeling is made-up > collateral damage that was never even a intent ;) > > As Jordi mentioned, traceability starts on L7 and it doesn't matter how > much you change addresses, you'll be trackable. > > For reference, try it on https://panopticlick.eff.org/ > > Click, change address, click again. But we should not do anything to preclude privacy-enhancing methods being applied at any layer. I would argue that the BCOP text should say: a) ISPs are encouraged to support both stable (persistent) and privacy-oriented (non-persistent) prefixes as options for customers; b) stable/persistent prefixes are recommended as the default, in the absence of legal requirements to the contrary in any specific country. I’d also note that the biggest UK IPv6 deployment is a “sticky” /56 to residences; it’s hard for an ISP to guarantee a lifetime stable prefix, but they can take steps to minimise the likelihood of a change being needed. Tim ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
On 15/05/2017 12:21, Tim Chown wrote:
But we should not do anything to preclude privacy-enhancing methods being applied at any layer.
Hi, But how does changing the address prefix provide any possible privacy enhancement at all? It's usually L7 that provides/breaks nearly all of that... Nevertheless, for those people being completely lost with how technology works and to assure their warm&fuzzy feeling while dictating how others should build and run their networks - I would agree to add your proposed text below to the document. ;) Cheers and thnx, Jan
I would argue that the BCOP text should say:
a) ISPs are encouraged to support both stable (persistent) and privacy-oriented (non-persistent) prefixes as options for customers;
b) stable/persistent prefixes are recommended as the default, in the absence of legal requirements to the contrary in any specific country.
I’d also note that the biggest UK IPv6 deployment is a “sticky” /56 to residences; it’s hard for an ISP to guarantee a lifetime stable prefix, but they can take steps to minimise the likelihood of a change being needed.
Tim
On 15 May 2017, at 11:44, Jan Zorz - Go6 <jan@go6.si> wrote:
On 15/05/2017 12:21, Tim Chown wrote:
But we should not do anything to preclude privacy-enhancing methods being applied at any layer.
Hi,
But how does changing the address prefix provide any possible privacy enhancement at all? It's usually L7 that provides/breaks nearly all of that…
Sure, much is at the application layer, but that is not a reason to address privacy issues at each layer. Hence, for example, with my IETF hat on, draft-ietf-dnssd-privacy-01 and draft-ietf-dnssd-pairing-01.
Nevertheless, for those people being completely lost with how technology works and to assure their warm&fuzzy feeling while dictating how others should build and run their networks - I would agree to add your proposed text below to the document. ;)
:) Well, I guess there is a potential user education topic here as well. It’s a trade-off. Tim
Cheers and thnx, Jan
I would argue that the BCOP text should say:
a) ISPs are encouraged to support both stable (persistent) and privacy-oriented (non-persistent) prefixes as options for customers;
b) stable/persistent prefixes are recommended as the default, in the absence of legal requirements to the contrary in any specific country.
I’d also note that the biggest UK IPv6 deployment is a “sticky” /56 to residences; it’s hard for an ISP to guarantee a lifetime stable prefix, but they can take steps to minimise the likelihood of a change being needed.
Tim
On 15/05/2017 12:50, Tim Chown wrote:
Nevertheless, for those people being completely lost with how technology works and to assure their warm&fuzzy feeling while dictating how others should build and run their networks - I would agree to add your proposed text below to the document. ;)
:)
Well, I guess there is a potential user education topic here as well. It’s a trade-off.
I believe that should be a whole new BCOP document just on that topic... ;) cheers, Jan
Anno domini 2017 Tim Chown scripsit: Hi,
But we should not do anything to preclude privacy-enhancing methods being applied at any layer.
I would argue that the BCOP text should say:
a) ISPs are encouraged to support both stable (persistent) and privacy-oriented (non-persistent) prefixes as options for customers;
b) stable/persistent prefixes are recommended as the default, in the absence of legal requirements to the contrary in any specific country.
I’d also note that the biggest UK IPv6 deployment is a “sticky” /56 to residences; it’s hard for an ISP to guarantee a lifetime stable prefix, but they can take steps to minimise the likelihood of a change being needed.
+1 Best Max -- "Ja und bei Gnome kann man..." "Ja, aber Gnome ist scheisse!" "Gnome ist kastriert und KDE langsam..." -- Axel Beckert und Lars Dieckow auf dem Linuxwochenende 2009, Wien
participants (7)
-
Gert Doering -
Jan Zorz - Go6 -
Jens Link -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
Maximilian Wilhelm -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Tim Chown