On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:09 PM, fredrik danerklint <fredan-na...@fredan.se> wrote: >> Barring a few fanatics, everyone here >> has known for several years now that CGN would be required for >> continuing IPv4 support regardless of the progress of IPv6. >> >> If you spin it right, it's a "Free network-based firewall to be >> installed next month. Opt out here if you don't want it." And the >> fewer than 1 in 10 folks who opt out really aren't a problem. > > Even tough you have very good arguments, my suggestion would be to have a > class A network (I got that right, right?) for all the users and only having > 6rd as service on that network.
ARIN and IETF cooperated last year to allocate 100.64.0.0/10 for CGN use. See RFC 6598. This makes it possible to implement a CGN while conflicting with neither the user's RFC1918 activity nor the general Internet's use of assigned addresses. Hijacking a /8 somewhere instead is probably not a great move. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
