[GLLUG] IPv6 addresses

Christopher Hunter cehunter at gb-x.org
Sun Jul 18 20:27:47 UTC 2021

On 18/07/2021 15:26, Andy Smith via GLLUG wrote:
> Hello,
> 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://www.init7.net/en/internet/fiber7/
> Cheers,
> Andy
To upset people further - my nephew lives in Singapore, and has his home 
and office 'net connections at 4 Gb/s symmetric for around $7 / month each!

When will we finally catch up?



More information about the GLLUG mailing list