On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 12:06 AM William Herrin via NANOG <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 7:32 PM Tim Burke via NANOG > <[email protected]> wrote: > > It seems like there are lots of folks that use it for direct downstream > > customer-facing allocations and are not even utilizing them for dual-stack > > services as intended. I have seen a number of “low end” web hosting > > companies (folks that advertise on websites like Low End Box) that do > > just that, as well as some smaller start up ISPs (including one right in my > > backyard that doesn’t even bother announcing IPv6). >
I don't think, really, there was ever any REAL hope that 100.64 was going to be used for anything except 'more rfc1918'. I'm sure in our heart of hearts we HOPED this would be a bridge element to get to more v6 and less v4, and that MIGHT even be the case sometimes, but.... it's non-globally-unique and people will do with that as they may. > Hi Tim, > > If you know it's 4.10 space (not address space allocated under a > different policy section) and you know they're using it for plain IPv4 > or generic dual stack, please file a report at > https://account.arin.net/public/fraud > Is it abuse/fraud if the LIR is treating this as RFC1918 / private space? > ARIN takes fraud seriously but they don't have eyes everywhere. yes. _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/HLFZ3YRIZY4HHQI7PQ3FNU22RHZXGRMM/
