Re: Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

[Lee Howard <lee () asgard org>]

On 12/19/17, 8:50 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Owen DeLong"
<nanog-bounces () nanog org on behalf of owen () delong com> wrote:

> > On Dec 19, 2017, at 07:39 , Livingood, Jason
> > <Jason_Livingood () comcast com> wrote:
> >
> > On 12/18/17, 2:36 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Harald Koch"
> > <nanog-bounces () nanog org on behalf of chk () pobox com> wrote:
> > > They could use IPv6. I mean, if the mobile phone companies can figure
> > > it out, surely an ISP can...
> >
> > Except for cases when it is impossible or impractical to update
> > software on a great number of legacy devices…
> >
> > JL
> Yeah, in those cases, they should use IPv6 + NAT64 or similar mechanism.

I’m a fan of IPv6-only plus translation, but not in this case.
If I have a functioning management network that’s mostly in IPv6 and
partly in rfc1918 space (or even squatted space), I don’t get much out of
NAT64. Renumbering the servers that actually touch/manage devices gets,
what, a /29 of IPv4 addresses? Better to focus on evolving to whatever
will replace those legacy devices.

Lee 

> Owen