Residential subscribers: numbered or unnumbered?

[Daniel Corbe]

Along these lines I'd like to see an example of how an unnumbered
configuration would work; because I'm using DHCPv6 for anything
customer-facing today.

Philip Matthews <philip_matthews at magma.ca> writes:

> 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?
>
>
> - Philip