On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 12:06 AM William Herrin via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 7:32 PM Tim Burke via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
It seems like there are lots of folks that use it for direct downstream customer-facing allocations and are not even utilizing them for dual-stack services as intended. I have seen a number of “low end” web hosting companies (folks that advertise on websites like Low End Box) that do just that, as well as some smaller start up ISPs (including one right in my backyard that doesn’t even bother announcing IPv6).
I don't think, really, there was ever any REAL hope that 100.64 was going to be used for anything except 'more rfc1918'. I'm sure in our heart of hearts we HOPED this would be a bridge element to get to more v6 and less v4, and that MIGHT even be the case sometimes, but.... it's non-globally-unique and people will do with that as they may.
Hi Tim,
If you know it's 4.10 space (not address space allocated under a different policy section) and you know they're using it for plain IPv4 or generic dual stack, please file a report at https://account.arin.net/public/fraud
Is it abuse/fraud if the LIR is treating this as RFC1918 / private space?
ARIN takes fraud seriously but they don't have eyes everywhere.
yes.