Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

RE: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT
From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner () cluebyfour org>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:57:57 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012, Chu, Yi [NTK] wrote:

It is not about security. It is about finding enough bits to service 7 digits number of subs.

IPv6 takes care of that problem quite effectively :)

If there is a major amount of gear in the network that will not support IPv6 (apply bat to vendor as appropriate), then I can understand going down the road of IPv4 + CGN, but I would consider that to be an absolute last resort. Not much upside, lots of downside.


-----Original Message-----
From: Dobbins, Roland [mailto:rdobbins () arbor net]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:19 AM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT

On Jul 19, 2012, at 3:50 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote:

No, reusing somebody's prefix is A Very Bad Idea.

Concur 100%.  There is no security value to doing this whatsoever - quite the opposite, given the possible negative 
consequences to reachability and, thus, availability.

Roland Dobbins <rdobbins () arbor net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>

         Luck is the residue of opportunity and design.

                      -- John Milton


This e-mail may contain Sprint Nextel proprietary information intended for the sole use of the recipient(s). Any use by 
others is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies of the 

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]