Also for ISP that have this "problem" called growth activities of this type (renumbering) may be required to ensure capacity is properly managed which in turn is essential to a proper customer experience.
========================================= John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable m) 484-962-0060 e) [email protected] o) 609-377-6594 w) www.comcast6.net ========================================= -----Original Message----- From: Wuyts Carl <[email protected]> Date: Friday, February 22, 2013 6:51 AM To: Ted Lemon <[email protected]>, Michael Thomas <[email protected]> Cc: Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Mark Townsley <[email protected]>, Dave Taht <[email protected]>, Jari Arkko <[email protected]>, John Jason Brzozowski <[email protected]>, "[email protected] Group" <[email protected]>, David Lamparter <[email protected]>, Lorenzo Colitti <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [homenet] Running code in Orlando >Small add-on to the address-renew policy @ some ISPs > >Some ISPs do refresh the IP every XX hours for several reasons: >* privacy >* different contracts, i.e. you pay more for fixed IP over dynamic IP, >i.e. allows hosting on same IP > >The same will be applied for IPv6. > >Best regards >Carl Wuyts >Help preserve the color of our world - Think before you print. > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >Behalf Of Ted Lemon >Sent: vrijdag 22 februari 2013 15:48 >To: Michael Thomas >Cc: Michael Richardson; Mark Townsley; Dave Taht; Jari Arkko; Brzozowski, >John; [email protected] Group; David Lamparter; Lorenzo Colitti >Subject: Re: [homenet] Running code in Orlando > >On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:34 PM, Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: >> Sigh all you like, but I share Dave's skepticism that ISP's >> renumbering my prefix willy-nilly and it just sort of works with >> naming -- including addresses squirrelled away in places they ought >> not be -- is going to work any time soon. I don't like to think that >> NAT is inevitable but frankly the people in this working group don't >>get to vote on that. > >It's probably also worth mentioning that in general ISPs that do this on >a regular basis are attacking their customer's network, and the resulting >instability is not the result of a failing on our part, but deliberate >action on the part of the ISP. > >There are countries where ISPs are required by law to _offer_ a change of >address every 24 hours for privacy purposes. At least in the cases I'm >aware of, ISPs don't _force_ this on their customers, but rather it's a >configuration option paranoid customers can choose, which may default to >on. This is an inconvenience to ISPs, because it causes address pool >churn, and requires a lot of extra bits to be allocated to PE devices to >accommodate all the deprecated addresses. > >Pretty much by definition, if you want to access your washing machine >while away from home, you're throwing that particular sort of privacy >right out the window. It wasn't buying you much anyway--fuzzing the >prefix by a few bits is very easy to reverse, and because of routing >hierarchies, IPv6 prefixes can't be assigned to the customer out of the >ISP's entire address space--by definition they will be restricted to >localities. > >The other use case for frequent renumbering is an ISP who wants to >prevent the customer from setting up servers. The washing machine is a >server. Either the ISP succeeds, or fails, but in either case, they are >acting directly against the customer's wishes. We can try to design a >system that's robust with respect to attacks like this, but in practice >the best way to address this problem is to prevent it happening on a >regular basis to people who will care about it. >_______________________________________________ >homenet mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
