Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT

Justin M. Streiner streiner at cluebyfour.org
Wed Aug 22 10:57:57 CDT 2012


On Mon, 20 Aug 2012, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote:

> It is not about security.  It is about finding enough bits to service 7 
> digits number of subs.

IPv6 takes care of that problem quite effectively :)

If there is a major amount of gear in the network that will not support 
IPv6 (apply bat to vendor as appropriate), then I can understand going 
down the road of IPv4 + CGN, but I would consider that to be an absolute 
last resort.  Not much upside, lots of downside.

jms

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dobbins, Roland [mailto:rdobbins at arbor.net]
> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:19 AM
> To: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT
>
>
> On Jul 19, 2012, at 3:50 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
>
>> No, reusing somebody's prefix is A Very Bad Idea.
>
> Concur 100%.  There is no security value to doing this whatsoever - quite the opposite, given the possible negative consequences to reachability and, thus, availability.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Roland Dobbins <rdobbins at arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
>
>          Luck is the residue of opportunity and design.
>
>                       -- John Milton
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message.
>
>
>


More information about the NANOG mailing list