On 12/19/17, 8:50 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Owen DeLong" <nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of o...@delong.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 19, 2017, at 07:39 , Livingood, Jason >><jason_living...@comcast.com> wrote: >> >> On 12/18/17, 2:36 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Harald Koch" >><nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of c...@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 > >
