[159617] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (fredrik danerklint)
Wed Jan 16 14:53:25 2013
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 20:53:08 +0100
From: fredrik danerklint <fredan-nanog@fredan.se>
To: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGV_Fa4igABrmgvccNgyw-DsZH-73WZusaCnD6dSDiwxeA@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
>> 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.
Ok.
If I have calculated the netmasks right that would mean to set aside:
2001:0DB8:6440::/42
for the use of 6rd service:
2001:0DB8:6440:0000::/64 = 100.64.0.0
....
2001:0DB8:647F:FFFF::/64 = 100.127.255.255
--
//fredan
http://tlmc.fredan.se
