Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Skeeve Stevens skeeve at skeeve.org
Tue Feb 3 15:59:15 CST 2009


It isn't ipv6 that needs to support NAT, it is the devices doing dual-stack.
This is where NAT-PT (v6-v4 NAT) will come in.

My opinion is that we only aren't further along because the hardware vendors
are slackers, mostly the low end guys like D-Link, Belkin, Netgear and so on
who provide most of the home networking equipment.  The big boys have
supported v6 NAT and NAT-PT for ages.

...Skeeve

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Marquis [mailto:marquis at roble.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 4:40 AM
To: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> Except the RIRs won't give you another /48 when you have only used one
>> trillion IP addresses.
>
> Are you sure?  According to ARIN staff, current implementation of policy
> is that all requests are approved since there are no defined criteria
> that would allow them to deny any.  So far, nobody's shown interest in
> plugging that hole in the policy because it'd be a major step forward if
> IPv6 were popular enough for anyone to bother wasting it...

Catch 22?  From my experience IPv6 is unlikely to become popular until it
fully supports NAT.

Much as network providers love the thought of owning all of your address
space, and ARIN of billing for it, and RFCs like 4864 of providing
rhetorical but technically flawed arguments against it, the lack of NAT
only pushes adoption of IPv6 further into the future.

Roger Marquis





More information about the NANOG mailing list