From your description below, I am pretty sure that one of the following is true:
1. Your service area covers ≤1% of the population of whatever state
or province you are in.
or 2. Your state or province has a population ≤1% of the US national
population.
I would argue that I am not an "abnormal" household by any definition other than
my internet access and that even by that definition, I am not particularly
abnormal
where I live.
There are many people I know of with much more expensive and elaborate
internet connectivity to their houses than what I have within 30 miles of me.
While I don't think I represent the typical residential ISP customer, I do
think that
the typical customer will eventually learn what static addressing is and will
want
it for a variety of reasons.
Owen
On Aug 2, 2011, at 5:29 PM, Scott Reed wrote:
> Nothing I can disagree with in your statements and I am not trying to
> argumentative, but I know my customer base and I can assure you there is not
> one one them that could tell you what
> ARIN
> Multi-home
> BGP
> OSPF
> RA
> or a host of other terms in your response are, let alone what they mean, why
> they would care, what they would do with it, etc.
> And you obviously live in a metropolitan area because there isn't DSL in most
> of my service are, nor is there cable, fiber of any kind and sometimes even
> satellite doesn't work. Very few of my customers could be dual-homed, let
> alone mutil-homed, if they wanted to.
> So, in order to keep the discussion general and to cover all the customer
> types, skill levels, etc., I really think we need to assume your are not a
> "normal" household that purchase Internet connectivity to play a game and
> check Facebook.
>
> One other comment.
> Even those of us the run very small businesses give away things for market
> share, visibility, etc.
>
> On 8/2/2011 8:03 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Aug 2, 2011, at 2:42 PM, james machado wrote:
>>
>>>>> Lets look at some issues here.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) it's unlikely that a "normal" household with 2.5 kids and a dog/cat
>>>>> will be able to qualify for their own end user assignment from ARIN.
>>>>>
>>>> Interesting...
>>>>
>>>> I have a "normal household".
>>>> I lack 2.5 kids and have no dog or cat.
>>>>
>>>> I have my own ARIN assignment.
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying that the 2.5 kids and the dog/cat would disqualify them? I
>>>> can't
>>>> find such a statement in ARIN policy.
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying that a household that multihomes is abnormal? Perhaps today,
>>>> but, not necessarily so in the future.
>>>>
>>> Yes I am saying a household that mulithomes is abnormal and with
>>> today's and contracted monopolies I expect that to continue. You are
>>> not a normal household in that 1) you multihome 2) you are willing to
>>> pay $1500+ US a year for your own AS, IP assignments 3) Internet
>>> service, much like cell phone service is a commodity product and many
>>> people go for the lowest price. They are not looking for the best
>>> options.
>>>
>> 1) yes.
>> 2) Uh, no. I pay $100/year to ARIN for all of my IP resources. I really don't
>> know where this $1,500+/year myth keeps coming from.
>> I bet most households pay more than $100/year for their internet access.
>> Heck, if you pay Comcast $5/month for a single static IP, you're paying
>> more than half of what I pay for 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,944
>> addresses and an AS Number. If you pay $9/month for 10 static IPs
>> to Comcast (these are their current rates, btw), you are paying
>> them MORE than I pay ($108 instead of $100) per year.
>> 3) I think people do some of both. I think that if people can get static for
>> the
>> same price, they will choose static over dynamic. I think that some
>> will even choose to use their dynamic to run tunnels where they
>> can get static. You can get free static tunnels for IPv6 today.
>>
>> So, no, the monopoly problem does not prevent what I am doing from
>> being done in most households because:
>>
>> 1. Most monopolies are actually at least duopolies with at least
>> one cable and at least one DSL or PON provider.
>>
>> 2. Contract monopolies are actually reducing rather than growing.
>>
>>
>>>>> 2) if their router goes down they loose network connectivity on the
>>>>> same subnet due to loosing their ISP assigned prefix.
>>>> I keep hearing this myth, and I really do not understand where it comes
>>>> from.
>>>> If they get a static prefix from their ISP and configure it into their
>>>> router and/or
>>>> other equipment, it does not go away when they loose their router. It
>>>> simply
>>>> isn't true.
>>> If they are using RA's to assign their network and the router goes
>>> down they can loose the network as well as the router thus going to
>>> link-local addresses. This has been discusses ad-nauseum on this
>>> list. As I recall you played a big part of that discussion and it was
>>> very interesting and informative.
>>>
>> 1. Why would you use RAs to assign numbers to things you want to work
>> when the router goes down.
>>
>> 2. This presumes they have only one router. There is no reason, given
>> static addressing, that they cannot have a High and a Medium priority
>> router. The High priority router provides connectivity to the ISP and
>> the
>> medium priority router is essentially /dev/null, but, keeps the
>> addresses
>> active.
>>
>> Yes, it has been discussed before, but, it continues to be made clear that
>> people are still applying a mixture of misinformation and IPv4-think to
>> the IPv6 situation, so, I continue to work towards better education.
>>
>>>>> 3) If they are getting dynamic IP's from their ISP and it changes they
>>>>> may or may not be able to print, connect to a share, things like that.
>>>>>
>>>> Perhaps, but, this is another reason that I think sane customers will
>>>> start demanding
>>>> static IPv6 from their providers in relatively short order.
>>>>
>>> I hope this happens but I'm guessing that with marketing and sales in
>>> the mix it will be another up charge to get this "service" and enough
>>> people won't pay it that we will be fighting these problems for a long
>>> time. Some businesses will pay it and some won't but the home user
>>> will probably not.
>>>
>> Amusingly, I have, so far, refused to pay it to Comcast on my business
>> class service. Every once in a while, they renumber my address and I have
>> to reconfigure my tunnel. (I'm using commodity internet access for layer
>> 2 transport into my home. The BGP is done between my home router and
>> routers in colo facilities via GRE).
>>
>>>>> these 3 items make a case for everybody having a ULA. however while
>>>>> many of the technical bent will be able to manage multiple addresses I
>>>>> know how much tech support I'll be providing my parents with either an
>>>>> IP address that goes away/changes or multiple IP addresses. I'll set
>>>>> them up on a ULA so there is consistency.
>>>>>
>>>> No, they don't. They make a great case for giving people static GUA.
>>> These are businesses were talking about. They are not going to "give"
>>> anything away.
>>>
>> Interesting… Hurricane Electric is a business. We give away IPv6 /48s to
>> tunnel broker users. In fact, we give away IPv6 transit services and tunnel
>> access. I see lots of businesses giving things away to try and gain market
>> advantage and customer awareness all the time. Why do you think that
>> a business would not do so, given the overwhelming evidence to the
>> contrary?
>>
>>>>> Complain about NAT all you want but NAT + RFC 1918 addressing in IPv4
>>>>> made things such as these much nicer in a home and business setting.
>>>>>
>>>> No, it really didn't. If IPv4 had contained enough addresses we probably
>>>> wouldn't have always-on dynamic connections in the first place.
>>>>
>>> Debatable but not worth an argument. Having said that the ability to
>>> 1) not have to renumber internal address space on changing ISPs 2) not
>>> having to give a printer (or other device with no security) a public
>>> IP address or run multiple addressing schemes and the security
>>> implications there of 3) change the internals of my network without
>>> worrying about the world are all important and critical issues for me.
>>>
>> Addressing != security. This issue has definitely been rehashed on
>> here several times and the reality is that you can have just as secure
>> a permit/deny policy with just as much of a default deny with public
>> addresses as you can without them. The difference, of course, is that
>> with public addresses, you have the option of creating permit rules
>> that may not be possible with private addresses depending on your
>> particular implementation (or lack thereof) of address translation.
>>
>> 1. Multihome and get portable GUA, problem solved. If it's actually
>> important to you, this is easy.
>>
>> 2. Since you can give it a public address and still block access
>> between the internet and it if you so choose (I actually find
>> it rather convenient to be able to print at home and the only
>> extra crap that comes out of my printer so far arrives via the
>> telephone line and the G3 protocol, not via IP), public GUA
>> does not change the nature of this issue.
>>
>> 3. I can change the internals of my network without worrying
>> about the world. I'm not sure why you think I can't. Frankly,
>> this claim makes no sense to me whatsoever.
>>
>>> I realize that these arguments are at layers 8& 9 of the OSI model
>>> (politics and religion) but that does not make them less real nor less
>>> important. They are not the same issues that ISP operators may
>>> normally have to deal with but they are crucial to business operators.
>>> The DSCP/RA arguments are of the same criticality and importance.
>> Agreed. However, misinformation and FUD remains misinformation
>> and FUD regardless of the ISO protocol layer in question.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>
> --
> Scott Reed
> Owner
> NewWays Networking, LLC
> Wireless Networking
> Network Design, Installation and Administration
>
>
>
> Mikrotik Advanced Certified
>
> www.nwwnet.net
> (765) 855-1060
> (765) 439-4253
> (855) 231-6239
>
>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
