Re: Slashdot: UK ISP PlusNet Testing Carrier-Grade NAT Instead of IPv6

[William Herrin <bill () herrin us>]

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