That's what's implied in the Wikipedia article.
On 10/27/2015 12:32 AM, Mathew Howard wrote:
Since these addresses aren't supposed to be used for normal internal
NAT, they really shouldn't go into bridge mode if they see one... I'm
guessing they don't look for anything other than RFC1918 addresses.
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:08 PM, George Skorup <geo...@cbcast.com
<mailto:geo...@cbcast.com>> wrote:
I just had a light bulb come on over my head about this. Will
routers that like to change to bridge/switch/AP mode if they see a
private address on the WAN port NOT do that if we hand out this range?
Here's my thought. We're contemplating changing our Canopy SMs
from bridge to NAT w/ DMZ and configure them to hand out only one
address via DHCP. Since the address pool size will be only one
address, if these stupid routers go into bridge mode, only the
router itself is going to get that address and none of the
customer's other devices will work.
This isn't your typical RFC1918-type address space, so I have to
wonder....
On 10/26/2015 10:58 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
I know, I just thought it was interesting that they didn't. If we
were still doing NAT I'd be using it.
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:50 PM, George Skorup
<geo...@cbcast.com <mailto:geo...@cbcast.com>> wrote:
Nothing says they have to use it.
On 10/26/2015 10:11 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
Interesting... I just checked my phone (US cellular) and
it's got a 10.x.x.x address... and no IPv6.
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:02 PM, George Skorup
<geo...@cbcast.com <mailto:geo...@cbcast.com>> wrote:
I bet if you look at your phone status, your IPv4
address will be in that range. It is on my Vz Android
phone. IIRC, that was specifically set aside for CGN. I
suppose we could also use it for our NAT mode CPEs.
On 10/26/2015 8:14 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT
Apparently 100.64.0.0/10 <http://100.64.0.0/10> was
set aside for ISP NAT so we can assign a WAN address
that was guaranteed not to collide with anybody's
LAN address. Am I the last one to notice?
