On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:09 PM, fredrik danerklint <fredan-nanog@fredan.se> wrote:
Barring a few fanatics, everyone here has known for several years now that CGN would be required for continuing IPv4 support regardless of the progress of IPv6.
If you spin it right, it's a "Free network-based firewall to be installed next month. Opt out here if you don't want it." And the fewer than 1 in 10 folks who opt out really aren't a problem.
Even tough you have very good arguments, my suggestion would be to have a class A network (I got that right, right?) for all the users and only having 6rd as service on that network.
ARIN and IETF cooperated last year to allocate 100.64.0.0/10 for CGN use. See RFC 6598. This makes it possible to implement a CGN while conflicting with neither the user's RFC1918 activity nor the general Internet's use of assigned addresses. Hijacking a /8 somewhere instead is probably not a great move. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004