Re: Accidental ARIN Reallocation

[Chris Woodfield via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

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/ZRREP5QVT5CCKJ55GH3YTO66EWMI7FTT/

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/UGQ2XA663TSVUQNJPW4JV354WDCHKNWB/