On 27/07/11 14:31, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > I will like to know, from those deploying IPv6 services to residential > customers, if you are planning to provide static or dynamic IPv6 prefixes. > > Just to be clear, I'm for static prefix delegation to residential > customers, however I heard that some ISPs are doing dynamic delegations, > the same way as is common today with IPv4. > > I don't thin it make sense, as the main reason for doing so in IPv4 was > address exhaustion and legacy oversubscription models such as PPP/dial-up.
For the few users who have requested it, we're using static addresses. (We don't enable it by default) However, routing table size can be an issue - if you do not have a way of splitting up users geographically or by realm into LNS clusters, then you potentially have (For a sizeable ISP) a six or seven figure number of dynamic routes to worry about. Quite apart from the fun surrounding scaling a single AS or area to that sort of size, it's also significantly beyond the hardware capacity of much core equipment. (A Cisco 7600, depending on supervisor, will take up to half a million IPv6 routes - and that's if you dump IPv4 totally)
