[159613] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Wed Jan 16 13:18:26 2013
In-Reply-To: <50F6DEB0.5030001@fredan.se>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:17:55 -0500
To: fredrik danerklint <fredan-nanog@fredan.se>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:09 PM, fredrik danerklint
<fredan-nanog@fredan.se> wrote:
>> Barring a few fanatics, everyone here
>> has known for several years now that CGN would be required for
>> continuing IPv4 support regardless of the progress of IPv6.
>>
>> If you spin it right, it's a "Free network-based firewall to be
>> installed next month. Opt out here if you don't want it." And the
>> fewer than 1 in 10 folks who opt out really aren't a problem.
>
> Even tough you have very good arguments, my suggestion would be to have a
> class A network (I got that right, right?) for all the users and only having
> 6rd as service on that network.
ARIN and IETF cooperated last year to allocate 100.64.0.0/10 for CGN
use. See RFC 6598. This makes it possible to implement a CGN while
conflicting with neither the user's RFC1918 activity nor the general
Internet's use of assigned addresses. Hijacking a /8 somewhere instead
is probably not a great move.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
