[GLLUG] IPv6 addresses
andy at bitfolk.com
Sun Jul 18 14:26:57 UTC 2021
On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 10:33:03AM +0100, Chris Bell via GLLUG wrote:
> My sister has a relatively new domestic BT broadband connection. The IPv4
> address was expected to be dynamic despite BT claiming to have sufficient IPv4
> addresses, while the IPv6 address so far has had a static /48 but dynamic /64.
> Is there a cost involved in providing a static address, or are UK customers
> considered to be incapable of safely using a static address? Perhaps it just
> allows them to charge extra for a "business" broadband.
Correct, in most cases it's an artificial segmentation of the market
in order to charge more money. There's no technical benefit and
quite a few downsides.
In some cases the ISP has more customers or is projected to have
more customers than they have IPv4 addresses, so some of them have
to be CGNAT, or CGNAT will have to be introduced soon, so it is wise
not to let people get used to having a dedicated IPv4 address.
There is no such issue with IPv6 so make the main prefix (in your
example a /48) static is sensible. The end device /64s within that
are often dynamic as a security/privacy measure though ideally this
is controlled by the customer's equipment not the provider's.
In Switzerland some can now get 25Gbit/s symmetric fibre with
static IPv4, static IPv6 and HD TV thrown in, for about £50/mo:
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
More information about the GLLUG