Thanks for the clarification Ted. I recall this being looked at as a standard practice ~10 years ago even for larger providers, however, the challenges associated with the same out weighed any perceived benefits. I do not hear much about this sort of thing these days.
========================================= John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable m) 484-962-0060 e) [email protected] o) 609-377-6594 w) www.comcast6.net ========================================= -----Original Message----- From: Ted Lemon <[email protected]> Date: Saturday, February 23, 2013 5:31 PM To: John Jason Brzozowski <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected] Group" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [homenet] Running code in Orlando >On Feb 23, 2013, at 6:58 PM, "Brzozowski, John" ><[email protected]> wrote: >> I do not think the issue here is privacy or lack of interest in the >>same. >> It is ensuring capacity is managed appropriately. Further, allocating >> static blocks to everyone has an entirely different set of impacts that >>go >> much deeper in the network beyond the home. > >To be clear, what I was talking about is a policy of deliberately >renumbering the customer in the absence of any operational need to do so, >other than a misguided attempt to enforce a contract clause that some >might describe as unconscionable. I happen to know that your company >doesn't do any such thing, because I'm a customer, but I have heard of >small ISPs doing this sort of thing with IPv4. > >I think the IPv6 architecture is quite robust in the face of such >behavior, certainly in comparison to IPv4. But the point is that if >this sort of behavior on the part of the ISP introduces some hiccups in >the performance of the homenet, this is par for the course. > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
