Re: Need /24 (arin) asap

[Lee Howard <lee.howard () retevia net>]

Assuming IPv6+translation, yes, you need IPv4 addresses of Good Repute 
for the outside; that might requiring constant monitoring, and notifying 
various content that it's shared address space. It's the same 
operational problem as CGNAT44, but reduced because half (or more) of 
your traffic is using unshared IPv6. Among other things, that means you 
don't need as many IPv4 addresses.

"But wait!" you say, because you're clever, "The original poster only 
wanted a /24. Surely you're not saying you could put less than a /24 
outside your CGN (44 or 64) and have it routed?"

Maybe the /28 is part of your larger aggregate. Or maybe it's a shared 
translator, handling, say, eight small companies who only need a /28 
each. And yes, you want very careful reputation monitoring in that case, 
and maybe some effort to prevent things that get one placed on Lists of 
Addresses of Ill Repute.

Sales pitch available on demand.

Lee Howard
Retevia.net


On 06/11/2018 12:56 PM, Michael Crapse wrote:
> Never do i suggest to not have ipv6! Simply that no matter what, You still
> have to traverse to ipv4 when you exit your ipv6 network onto ipv4 only
> services. What IPv4 addresses are you going to use for the NAT64, or
> 464xlat, or even the business customers that require static IPv4 addresses?
> Someone made a statement that getting more ipv6 would solve OP's problem of
> finding more clean ipv4 space
>
>
> On 11 June 2018 at 10:50, Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 9:27 AM, Michael Crapse <michael () wi-fiber io>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > For an eyeball network, you cannot count on an IPv6 only network. Because
> > > all of your "customers" will complain because they can't get to hulu, or
> > > any other ipv4 only eyeball service. You still need the ipv4s to operate a
> > > proper network, and good luck figuring out which services are blacklisting
> > > your new /24 because the ipv4 space used to be a VPN provider, and the "in"
> > > thing to do for these services is to block VPNs.
> > There are many IPv6-only eyeball networks.  Definitely many examples in
> > wireless (T-Mobile, Sprint, BT ) and wireline (DT with DS-Lite in Germany,
> > Orange Poland ...) and even more where IPv4 NAT44 + IPv6 is used.  Just
> > saying, having ipv6 hedges a lot of risk associate with blacklisting and
> > translation related overhead and potentially scale and cost of IPv4
> > addresses.
> >
> >
> > > On 11 June 2018 at 09:21, Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 8:43 AM Stan Ouchakov <stano () imaginesoftware com
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Can anyone recommend transfer market brokers for ipv4 addresses? Need
> > > > > clean /24 asap. ARIN's waiting list is too long...
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -Stan
> > > > >
> > > > > Meanwhile, FB reports that 75% of mobiles in the USA reach them via
> > > > ipv6
> > > >
> > > > https://code.facebook.com/posts/635039943508824/how-ipv6-dep
> > > > loyment-is-growing-in-u-s-and-other-countries/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And Akaimai reports 80% of mobiles
> > > >
> > > > https://blogs.akamai.com/2018/06/six-years-since-world-ipv6-
> > > > launch-entering-the-majority-phases.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And they both report ipv6 is faster / better.