ipv6-ops Digest, Vol 159, Issue 1

[Michael Sturtz]

Nick I agree!  The problem is from an operational support and protocol level we created this monster by selling the idea of "end to end connectivity" and "every end site will get a /64" that has been sold to even end users.  I understand that the ISPs really don’t want customers to be able to serve content from consumer connections.  This is likely why they are randomly changing the /64 allocated to the end sites especially on consumer lines.  It is highly likely this situation wasn't anticipated when drafting the protocol.  We can come up with a protocol solution to account for this which gives the ISPs the flexibility to renumber their networks as they need while at the same time not breaking connectivity for end sites when the renumber event occurs.  I have personal experience with multiple devices that use SLAAC breaking connectivity for some indeterminate period of time when a network renumber event occurs.  Yes this could be due to poorly implemented end devices etc. but the end point is people just disable IPv6 because of the headaches caused by it.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> 
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 8:10 AM
To: Michael Sturtz <Michael.Sturtz at PACCAR.com>
Cc: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>; Fernando Gont <fernando at gont.com.ar>; ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de
Subject: Re: ipv6-ops Digest, Vol 159, Issue 1

Michael Sturtz wrote on 25/10/2019 16:03:
> This sort of operational nonsense will limit the wider acceptance of 
> IPv6!  I am responsible research and for the documentation and 
> implementation of IPv6 for a Fortune 200 company.  We have locations 
> worldwide.  The allocation of unstable end network addresses 
> complicates the deployment and support of IPv6.
most service providers view this as a commercial issue rather than a protocol issue.  This is just an observation, btw.

Nick