Companies using public IP space owned by others for internal routing

Oliver O'Boyle oliver.oboyle at gmail.com
Wed Dec 20 21:24:28 CST 2017


Excellent, thanks! Will dig into it.

Oliver

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Ca By <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 1:01 PM Oliver O'Boyle <oliver.oboyle at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Agreed. There now. We need cheap, open source, options for widespread
>> adoption.
>>
>
> http://jool.mx/en/index.html
>
> Free open source nat64
>
>
>> Oliver
>>
>> On Dec 20, 2017 12:51, "Michael Crapse" <michael at wi-fiber.io> wrote:
>>
>> > +1 for Nat64. dual stack is just keeping ipv4 around longer than it
>> needs
>> > to be
>> >
>> > On 19 December 2017 at 18:50, Owen DeLong <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.
>> > >
>> > > Owen
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>


-- 
:[email protected]>


More information about the NANOG mailing list