On 03/28/06 at 8:54pm +0200, Anthony G. Atkielski <anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Scott Leibrand writes: > > > They can charge for IPv4 addresses because they're perceived to be scarce. > > With IPv6 they may be able to charge for allowing me a /48 instead of a > > /56 or /64, but IMO they won't be able to assign me a /128 by default and > > charge me if I want a /64. > > They will charge you for every address beyond one. Wait and see. We definitely will have to see how it shapes up in the US. In Japan, where they actually have IPv6 deployed to end users, it looks like most ISPs are giving out /64's to home users, and /48's to business users: http://www.apnic.net/meetings/18/docs/sigs/policy/policy-pres-tomohiro-ipv6-endusers.pdf > BTW, giving out /64s is one reason why the IPv6 address space will be > exhausted in barely more time than was required to exhaust the IPv4 > address space. > > > Then I will switch ISPs. > > They will all be doing it. I doubt it. There are RFC's (3177) and RIR policies (http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six54) that *require* ISPs to allocated a /64 or larger unless "it is absolutely known that one and only one device is connecting." > > ARIN guidelines specifically require ISPs to give out larger blocks when > > requested. If any ISPs try to be hard-nosed about it and give out /128's > > anyway, it will be pretty easy to pressure & shame them sufficiently that > > they'll feel it in the marketplace. > > How? I haven't been able to pressure or shame my ISP into setting > rDNS correctly for my IP address. In fact, nobody at my ISP knows > what that means. What is "correct" rdns? Is adsl-066-156-091-129.sip.asm.bellsouth.net "correct"? -Scott _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf