As I remember it, the rationale for RFC6596 was to reserve a private address space that specifically was not RFC1918, so that cable providers and other ISPs could have a separate private range to NAT behind that wouldn’t conflict with their customers' 10/8, 192.168/24, etc home networks. This is tangential to any discussion of 4.10 space, which is intended as a IPv4 bridge for IPv6-only networks to NAT into. -Chris
On Dec 17, 2025, at 11:48, Randy Bush via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
I don't think, really, there was ever any REAL hope that 100.64 was going to be used for anything except 'more rfc1918'.
my memory is that was the actual plan and justification. specifically, i think it was the cable folk who wanted it; but i am less sure of that part.
randy _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/ZRREP5QV...