On Aug 7, 2012, at 5:32 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> From: mrex@xxxxxxx (Martin Rex) > >> To me, IPv6 PA prefixes look like a pretty useless feature (from the >> customer perspective). > > Far be it from me to defend IPv6, but... I don't see the case here. > > Our house is pretty typical of the _average_ consumer - we have a provider > suppplied PA address (IPv4, but the principles are the same), which they seem > to change on a fairly regular basis as they renumber/reorganize their > network. However, as we don't run any servers/services, we don't care. Thanks > to the magic of DHCP, etc, everything 'just works'. So for the _average_ > customer (who are 99.9...% of their customers), PA is just fine. If home automation systems become more commonplace, having a "server" at home may also become more commonplace. What's the point of having an IPv6-enabled lightbulb if you can't turn it off from half-way around the world? But as long as DNS updates dynamically, this shouldn't be a problem. For organizations renumbering is more painful, but as long as there's plenty of time to prepare - it should be manageable. If it's too painful, there are provider independent addresses, but how many really need them? Yoav