-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi, On 14/9/19 5:19 pm, Andrew Worsley via luv-main wrote:
One (different) point to mention is that static IPs now cost $10 extra for most NBN providers. Tangerine is still offering static IPv4s https://www.tangerinetelecom.com.au/help/do-i-get-a-static-ip-address- with-my-nbn-connection
but their support might not be as good as the other larger players. As an agent for Exetel I can tell you the following (agent code V007 fwiw). It has *always* been a feature of every Exetel service that you get a static IP address with the exception of Mobile plans... but there is a static IP option with this as well. Going forward with the exhaustion of IPv4 address space; existing customers will retain static IP; new RESIDENTIAL customers /may/ be placed on carrier grade NAT. but they /may/ be able to still get a static IPv4 if required. Business grade services have a standard feature of having a IPv6 as static at this time for every service and this is one reason why an SMB might choose business plan over a residential one (along with other reasons). I am seeing that customers, including myself, are being allocated an IPv6 with a /60 network -- this includes 8x /64 networks, each IPv6 /64 network provides an extreme number of IPv6 addresses: 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 per /64 As of now, I have not setup anything to use IPv6 and I'm not sure when I will as IPv4 is with the blocks I have available are currently sufficient for my requirements (/29 in two locations). The ONLY reason for NEW residential customers will use carrier grade NAT is due to the IPv4 exhaustion; such exhaustion has far outlived expectations as many believed that everyone would be using IPv6 only by now and even for some time. Ordinary NAT since, in particular, DSL connections made a very significant difference to the timeline of moving to IPv6. Of course NAT was used with dial-up as well, but it was never such an issue back then in terms of IPv4 exhaustion. Heck, 1x /64 is in itself a very huge number of IP addresses, so many that with creative use, I expect you could allocate as many 1 to 1 addresses as you like and each could have short time usage; that is, if there is any consideration of being a moving target .... and other benefits of short term usage. The biggest problem with IPv6, as I see it, is that there are a huge number of bad IPv4 hosts out there spamming email inboxes; this problem will be cause services that block on IP addresses to be significantly harder to filter bad stuff out. I wish those using IPv4 badly (ie spammers and scammers), would completely lose access to the Internet and especially any IPv4 addresses that they consume. But someone can be doing good things on an IPv4 address for a long time and then do bad things at any time; blocking an IPv4 address like this is a lot easier than blocking single IPv6 addresses -- you would have to take out vert large blocks of IPv6 to block some end points, but they will likely have easy access to another large block to abuse people . https://www.kthx.at/subnetmask/ Cheers AndrewM -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEAREIAB0WIQTJAoMHtC6YydLfjUOoFmvLt+/i+wUCXXz/tAAKCRCoFmvLt+/i +58UAQC6SjqzvIcqr9+FRUllsWFge01e85H7NZsPy8GMx3xIVQD/fFDGQbtdHHll 6VoxQmKus79BCKVuAc/mrS0+wJxf2uM= =vBD2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----