Reply to comment:

Jan Jerabek
I think there are minor errors in this part of the text: " The CPE boots up again when power is recovered, and because the ISP is using a non-persistent prefix, a new prefix is assigned (2001:db8:2222::/48), so now the CPE is announcing 2001:db8:2222::1/64. However, the devices that have battery (laptops, tablets, smartphones) still have the previous prefix, so now they have two different prefixes (2001:db8:1111::1/64 and 2001:db8:2222::1/64). " Suggested corrections: 2001:db8:2222::1/64 is particular address, not prefix. I think it should be replaced by 2001:db8:2222::/64, or for better clarity, by 2001:db8:2222:0::/64, if it is prefix. Similarly, at the end of the second sentence, (2001:db8:1111::1/64 and 2001:db8:2222::1/64), should be corrected in the same way, i.e. 2001:db8:1111:0::/64 and 2001:db8:2222:0::/64. In my opinion, also this part of the text is confusing: " There may be a special case for customers with privacy concerns: if they consider the prefix (not the address) as personal data, the customer might have the right to get it changed from time to time. In IPv6 this should not be a significant issue, because OSes use privacy addresses to avoid tracking users, and furthermore, modern technologies for tracking rely on many other parameters obtained from the browser, apps, etc. However, this can be solved by allowing the users to choose a non-persistent prefix in their Internet connection management interface. " My opinion: Of course, there are privacy extensions in OSes, changing lower 64 bits of IPv6 address, however, if prefix of SOHO is persistent, and there are only several home users behind it, prefix of this network represents globally unique ID of this user(s) and changing of lower 64 bits has no meaning at all. Therefore, mentioning of privacy extensions is unnecessary.