Re: [OPSAWG] [OPS-AREA] Heads up - Plea for allocating a /8 to ISPs

On 16Nov2010, at 18.05, Erik Kline wrote:

> 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.
> 
Yes, we have :)


---
李柯睿
Check my PGP key here:
https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops