RE: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT

["Justin M. Streiner" <streiner () cluebyfour org>]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote:

> It is not about security.  It is about finding enough bits to service 7 
> digits number of subs.

IPv6 takes care of that problem quite effectively :)

If there is a major amount of gear in the network that will not support 
IPv6 (apply bat to vendor as appropriate), then I can understand going 
down the road of IPv4 + CGN, but I would consider that to be an absolute 
last resort.  Not much upside, lots of downside.

jms

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dobbins, Roland [mailto:rdobbins () arbor net]
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:19 AM
> To: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT
>
>
> On Jul 19, 2012, at 3:50 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
>
> > No, reusing somebody's prefix is A Very Bad Idea.
>
> Concur 100%.  There is no security value to doing this whatsoever - quite the opposite, given the possible negative 
> consequences to reachability and, thus, availability.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Roland Dobbins <rdobbins () arbor net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
>
>          Luck is the residue of opportunity and design.
>
>                       -- John Milton
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by 
> others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the 
> message.