Residential subscribers: numbered or unnumbered?

[Florian Lohoff]

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 01:29:39PM -0400, Philip Matthews wrote:
> Folks:
> 
> Until recently, I was under the impression that most people were using
> numbered v6 links to residential subscribers, allocating the WAN
> address using DHCPv6.  However, recently two people have told me about
> a number of providers that are doing unnumbered instead.
> 
> So for anyone who has deployed or is planning to deploy residential
> IPv6, I am curious to know which way you are going, and more
> importantly why you selected that approach? My interest is primarily
> in IPoE, but I don't mind hearing about PPPoE as well.
> 
> The arguments I know or have heard for going numbered are:
> * Have a WAN address that one can ping remotely to verify connectivity
> (here I am assuming using DHCPv6 to assign a specific IID like ::1)
> * Want to use TR-069
> 
> The arguments I can think of for going unnumbered are:
> * Greater security
> * Plan to ping the loopback address on the CPE
> 
> Additional questions for those who have chosen the unnumbered approach or are using SLAAC to number the WAN address.
> * What are you doing wrt having an address to ping to confirm the CPE
>   is reachable?
> * For those doing unnumbered, do all CPEs implement the same algorithm
> for selecting the loopback address according to WAA-7 in RFC 7084? If
> not, how do you handle this? For example, do you only select CPEs that
> implement the same algorithm? Do you just try the likely candidates
> until one works? Or something else?

We are doing PPPoE with SLAAC and DHCP-PD for a /56 - simple -
straightforward and works like a charm with our AVM CPE installbase.
Shipping IPv6 default enabled CPEs for 2 years.

PPPoE solves all the v6 L2 security problems of legacy L2 networks and
also solves the connectivity issues from your second paragraph. PPP
comes with keepalives. Combined with multiple BRASes the fallback
with a delayed PADO you are basically done with a failover scenario.

We have some small footprints with IPoE and we dont even plan to offer
v6 in that situation.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff                                                 f at zz.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 828 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20140325/40bbebe1/attachment.bin