Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

Wed Dec 20 18:57:46 UTC 2017

On 12/19/17, 8:50 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Owen DeLong"
<nanog-bounces at nanog.org on behalf of owen at delong.com> wrote:

>
>> On Dec 19, 2017, at 07:39 , Livingood, Jason
>><Jason_Livingood at comcast.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On 12/18/17, 2:36 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Harald Koch"
>><nanog-bounces at nanog.org on behalf of chk at 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
>
>