> 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. > > 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. Which was why IPv6 when to 128 bits rather than 64 bits. 64 bits of address space would have been fine to give everyone all the addresses they would need. 128 bits gives them all the networks they will need. > > Then I will switch ISPs. > > They will all be doing it. > > > 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews@xxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf