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 <[email protected]> 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/[email protected]/message/ZRREP5QVT5CCKJ55GH3YTO66EWMI7FTT/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/UGQ2XA663TSVUQNJPW4JV354WDCHKNWB/
