3 ms·
There's advantages and disadvantages to this approach. When we're talking about residential networks, some consumers won't care about the inability to do that,
by chrononaut 8y ago
There's advantages and disadvantages to this approach. When we're talking about residential networks, some consumers won't care about the inability to do that, some will. Those that do care also have to weigh the privacy concerns about the fact that they have a now static prefix for their networks, much like static IPv4 addresses.
Personally I'd prefer ISPs to take an approach like this by default, but allow the option for the consumer to have a statically assigned IPv6 prefix for free if they want it, who understand its implications.
- elcomet 8y ago> When we're talking about residential networks, some consumers won't care about the inability to do that, some will. This prevents also to create products that need a public address. I think it is a real brake on innovation, who knows what could be invented if everyone had a public ip address ?
- pas 8y agoThe address is public, you can use a dynDNS easily. Relying on fixed addresses never works.
- jayflux 8y ago[devils advocate] ISPs are businesses, they are also there to make money, those customers who want a static address may have to pay extra to get one. They know static IPs are more valuable so they won’t give them out by default, ipv4 was the same.