[ipv6hackers] IPv6 prefix changing

Dan Wing dwing at cisco.com
Wed Mar 7 21:02:09 CET 2012

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6hackers-bounces at lists.si6networks.com [mailto:ipv6hackers-
> bounces at lists.si6networks.com] On Behalf Of S.P.Zeidler
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 3:50 AM
> To: IPv6 Hackers Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ipv6hackers] IPv6 prefix changing
> Hi,
> Thus wrote JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (jordi.palet at consulintel.es):
> > You're right, I got an official confirmation. It is not (yet) such a
> law,
> > but it is a very strong recommendation from the data protection
> agency and
> > it seems that German ISPs offering IPv6 to residential customers (or
> in
> > the process to), have included such recommendation in their plans.
> I've
> > seen this already in a couple of ISPs presentations, including DT.
> .. and all of this has nothing whatsoever to do with ISPs offering
> the same service (essentially) to businesses at 5x the price, with
> a static prefix. No social engineering going on at all, nothing to see
> here, move along.

Yep, exactly.

This behavior, though, will change IPv6 prefixes in the home, which
will cause hiccups of IPv6 traffic within the home...  I know we would
all think ULA within the home solves all woes, but it's hard for
a user to know (or care) if their video streamer or NAS are advertising
ULA or GUA within the home, and which devices are using ULA or GUA.
I fear the in-home renumbering will cause IPv6 hiccups, and will be
"""solved""" by doing NPTv6 at the home boundary.


> regards,
> 	spz
> --
> spz at serpens.de (S.P.Zeidler)
> _______________________________________________
> Ipv6hackers mailing list
> Ipv6hackers at lists.si6networks.com
> http://lists.si6networks.com/listinfo/ipv6hackers

More information about the Ipv6hackers mailing list