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 <[email protected]> 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
