On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Mark Baker wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2001 at 08:41:57PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> > As there are no huge technical or address allocational reasons why ISP's
> > could not give at least /64, those ISP's that do get more popular and ones
> > dealing /128's do not, and disappear from IPv6 market.
> There are, however, technical reasons why ISPs might want to use dynamic IPs
> (if they have lots of dial-up hardware in different locations, routing
> issues make static IP difficult), so although their customers would get a
> /64, it might be a different one every time they dial up.
> In that situation, since I wouldn't want addresses on my local network to
> keep changing, I would want to use NAT to translate the address block
> assigned by the ISP onto some site local address space.
This is an "illegal" use of NAT for IPv6. The use of
autoconfiguration/router renumbering is encouraged in situations like
these. If the prefix isn't static, dyndns _could_ be used but I don't see
this as an issue (if you don't get a static prefix, you probably shouldn't
have sensible dns records either).
Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords