5 ms·
CGNATs should be using 100.64/10 instead of 10/8 to avoid this problem, but I don't doubt that there are significant deployments on 10/8 anyway.
by greyface- 9mo ago
CGNATs should be using 100.64/10 instead of 10/8 to avoid this problem, but I don't doubt that there are significant deployments on 10/8 anyway.
- zinekeller 9mo agoThe IETF really dragged their heels on CGNAT because they thought that IPv6 is easy™ (of course not, it's intentionally designed not to be "almost the same but wider" but include unworkable stuff like Mobile IPv6[1] which is just a fancy VPN) until they were forced to allocate 100.64.0.0/10 because some ISPs are not just using 10.0.0.0/8 but also US-DoD addresses (especially 11.0.0.0/8, because it's basically 10.0.0.0/7) as "private" addresses. [1] Not IPv6 on mobile devices but a fully-owned IPv6 range that is supposed to be the address for a device regardless of where it is, see RFC 3775
- pcarroll 9mo agoI wanted to use 11.0.0.0 and call the company "Eleven," but by that time the DOD had given up the block for general use... GCNAT is perfect.