1

With IPv4, ISP's rarely, if ever, assigned a static IP to a consumer except for maybe AT&T and a few local carriers unless you registered as a business account with them. I understand with the limited address space why this was done.

However, with IPv6, it's estimated every person can theoretically own over a million IP's each. For those in the ISP business, will residential users be able to request a block of IP's once IPv6 becomes more mainstream? I'm not sure what the equivalent subnet of a /24 on IPv4 is with IPv6 but I would think it would be reasonable to assign that many if requested.

Reason I ask is, IPv6 no longer supports NAT like IPv4. With the amount of IoT devices, mobile devices, etc, I have easily consumed 83 IPv4 addresses on my private network. If the ISP continues to only assign one IP, how will that affect the future of Internet connectivity for homes?

closed as too broad by Ron Trunk, YLearn Sep 4 '15 at 5:47

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • Sorry, but unless you work for an ISP, this is just opinion – Ron Trunk Sep 4 '15 at 2:02
  • Welcome to NE, we hope you will both contribute to and learn from this community. As currently stated your question is too broad to be answered. Either it has too many possible answers or a good answer would be too long for this format. Specifically there is no "one answer" to how the thousands of ISPs will handle this and we can't answer for all of them in any case. Please edit your question and it will automatically start a reopen vote. You may find our Question Checklist helpful to improve your question. – YLearn Sep 4 '15 at 5:47
  • Why would you close this when there are perfectly good answers provided, like the one by Ron Maupin? I'm from the SP side and the movement in the industry is fairly aligned across most ISPs; DHCPv6-PD to hand out /56 networks (some do /48 or something else but still more than a single address). Mobile is different but that wasn't specifically asked for so I assume we are talking about fixed access. – kll Nov 27 '15 at 0:26
0

The IANA recommendation is to assign everyone a /48 (65,536 networks of 18 quintiliion addresses in each /64 subnet) network. Most ISPs are only assigning /56 networks (256 /64 subnets). You can always get a free tunnel (/64 or /48) to the IPv6 Internet from a company like Hurricane Electric.

You would be surprised, but all the big ISPs are already assigning IPv6 to most of their customers (most customers don't have IPv6-capable routers, or they don't realize it). Google receives a large amount of consumer IPv6 traffic.

As of right now, ARIN only has 92 /24 (none larger) IPv4 blocks left to assign to ISPs.

  • My ISP assigned me a /56 range and then a /64 PTP – Gareth Hastings Sep 3 '15 at 20:37
  • Many residential ISPs, if you live in the right place, and have the right hardware, but The Big Boys(tm) -- commercial, tier1 -- are laughingly behind on IPv6. – Ricky Beam Sep 3 '15 at 21:02
  • @Ricky Beam, we deal with a lot of the big, commercial ISPs, and they are all IPv6 ready. – Ron Maupin Sep 3 '15 at 21:06
  • "IPv6 Ready" doesn't mean they can ("do") bring IPv6 to all their customers. I've had sales people dancing around this for years. 'tho, they do all know what IPv6 is, now. Amazon, one of the largest "cloud providers" around, has ZERO IPv6 support. (even their DNS service cannot answer a AAAA query) – Ricky Beam Sep 3 '15 at 21:12
  • 1
    I asked my ISP (the only one available in my area) for IPv6 regularly for the last two years. Two months ago, they finally said that they could do it, but the edge router I am on doesn't support it. They scheduled downtime to move me to a different router, but ran into yet more issues, and now they kicked it back to the sales department. – Kevin Keane Nov 8 '15 at 4:54
0

Many residential ISPs offer "static address" as an (expensive) up-sell. It may be hard to find, but it's usually there. In the era of DSL and cablemodems, the always-on nature of the technology makes address scarcity a moot point -- the customer will always require an address. Providing a static, unchanging address is a means to extract more money.

With IPv6, it is unlikely any residential ISP will go to the bother of providing static prefixes. It makes for a routing mess, and takes a lot more effort in account management.

And IPv6 does, today, support NAT. (as bad an idea as that might be, there's an RFC for it.)

  • The IPv6 NAT RFC is marked for experimental, not standards track. There's no official, agreed upon method to support NAT on IPv6. That doesn't mean that there won't be in the future, but, as of today, it is not officially sanctioned, and it can break things. – Ron Maupin Sep 3 '15 at 21:08
  • RFC 6296, IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation, says This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for examination, experimental implementation, and evaluation. – Ron Maupin Sep 3 '15 at 21:45
  • I didn't say it was a good idea (or a "internet standard"). It does exist; and people (read: Cisco) have implemented it. – Ricky Beam Sep 3 '15 at 23:57
  • 1
    RFC 6296 isn't full NAT, it is prefix-only translation; it addresses some issues that IPv4 NAT addresses, but not all of them. Many vendors have implemented an IPv4-like NAT, though, despite the absence of an RFC. – Kevin Keane Nov 8 '15 at 5:29

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.