nanog mailing list archives
Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing
From: Phil Bedard <bedard.phil () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 00:18:20 -0500
I’m pretty sure Comcast, along with most other MSOs in NA, use squat space for various endpoints because they have run out of public and private IPv4 space. Everyone obviously wants to get to all IPv6 but there are millions of end devices and other gear they speak to which do not support it. For the most part I think they try to re-use space and use the transition space when they can, but some deployed squat space before that came about or it’s simply not enough. Phil On 12/18/17, 3:36 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Mark Andrews" <nanog-bounces () nanog org on behalf of marka () isc org> wrote: Companies like COMCAST did. They manage the modems over IPv6. They also supported DS-Lite’s development as a transition mechanism so they wouldn’t have to run IPv4 to their customers. They wanted to be able to go IPv6 only. That meant having IPv4 as a service available. -- Mark Andrews > On 19 Dec 2017, at 06:34, Harald Koch <chk () pobox com> wrote: > >> On 17 December 2017 at 17:48, Tom Carter <m1enrage () gmail com> wrote: >> >> RFC1918 isn't big enough to cover all use cases. Think about a large >> internet service providers. If you have ten million customers, 10.0.0.0/8 >> would be enough to number modems, but what happens when you need to number >> video set top boxes and voice end points? I don't think anyone goes out and >> says "Lets go use someone else's space, because I don't want to use this >> perfectly good private space". >> > > :cough: > > They could use IPv6. I mean, if the mobile phone companies can figure it > out, surely an ISP can... > > -- > Harald
Current thread:
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too, (continued)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Owen DeLong (Dec 29)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too Nick Hilliard (Dec 29)
- Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too William Herrin (Dec 29)
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing Jens Link (Dec 17)
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing james machado (Dec 17)
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing Richard (Dec 17)
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing Harry McGregor (Dec 17)
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing Tom Carter (Dec 18)
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing Harald Koch (Dec 18)
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing Mark Andrews (Dec 18)
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing Phil Bedard (Dec 18)
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing Livingood, Jason (Dec 19)
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing Owen DeLong (Dec 19)
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing Michael Crapse (Dec 20)
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing Oliver O'Boyle (Dec 20)
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing Ca By (Dec 20)
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing Oliver O'Boyle (Dec 20)
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing Jens Link (Dec 20)
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing Mark Andrews (Dec 20)
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing Ca By (Dec 20)
- Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing Mark Andrews (Dec 20)