XS4ALL Introduces native IPv6 for DSL customers

[Marco Hogewoning]

On 27 aug 2010, at 08:48, Roger Wiklund wrote:

> I know I'm comparing DSL to Ethernet, and your DSL service might work
> completely different,  but I just wanted to see what your thoughts
> are.

It isn't that different as we carry ethernet frames over DSL

> My building at home has fiber to the basement, connecting to a Cisco
> 3750 switch. Each apartment connects to that switch with Cat6.
> It appears that all residents that have internet connection is in the
> same VLAN, and in the same subnet. I assume my ISP has the standard
> edge switch security against arp spoofing/poisoning, dhcp spoofing
> etc.
> 
> I don't know if they have private VLAN with proxy-arp or something
> similar, but lets say for the arguments sake that I can send traffic
> to my neighbor directly on layer 2 via the switch, as we are in the
> same subnet.
> 
> "PPP is unnumbered ie link local only, we assign a /48 per customer
> available as IA_PD."

Thas why we run PPPoE, unfortunately most equipment can't give the same type of protection for anti-spoofing, DHCP snooping and ND proxy for IPv6 as they do for IPv4 :(

> My questions are:
> 
> Do you mean that each individual customer gets a /48, and another
> customer in the same building gets another /48, I.E you have to route
> to be able to communicate between them. Instead of them being in the
> same /48 and potentially being able to communicate on layer 2.

Yups

> Why are you assigning a /48 instead of a /56 or /64. Is it just
> "because we can" or are there other benefits etc?

Because we can and mostly because a one-size-fits all was much easier to implement at the moment. The whole address management system is automated, it is capable of supplying itself with new addresses when pools run out etc.

Als a lot of folks out there once heard about the 48 and are still sticking to it, even when the policy differs. Saves ourself a lot of discussion and waving policy.

MarcoH