Re: [OPSAWG] [OPS-AREA] Heads up - Plea for allocating a /8 to ISPs
Erik Kline <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.v6ops,gmane.ietf.ops |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 16 November 2010 15:52, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike-uVNFFiCRr/[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, 14 Nov 2010, David Conrad wrote: > >> b) having somebody go to one of the RIRs and get the space, then making >> that space NAT444 space for everybody (e.g., like what Microsoft did with >> 169.254.0.0/16) > > Isn't 169.254.0.0/16 an excellent network to use for NAT444 ? I agree that > it's not that huge, but it's still 64k addresses, one would have to make > sure the CGN can handle interface context (multiple instances of the same > space) and then one would be good to go. It's there, using LL between CPE > and ISP actually sounds perfect, that's what I want to do for IPv6 as well +1 Or 198.18.0.0/15? =) But I would guess that supporters of this NAT444 stuff have already picked over the things that http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5735 has to offer. _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops