For a truckload of gold, I’m pretty sure most of us would make that work ☺
Kenny From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+kenny.taylor=kccd....@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 10:04 PM To: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.li...@gmail.com> Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: OpenDNS CGNAT Issues On Sep 11, 2018, at 21:58 , Christopher Morrow <morrowc.li...@gmail.com<mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 9:06 PM Jerry Cloe <je...@jtcloe.net<mailto:je...@jtcloe.net>> wrote: OpenDNS, or anyone for that matter, should never see 100.64/10 ip's. If they do, something is wrong at the source, and OpenDNS wouldn't be able to reply anyway (or at least have the reply route back to the user). maybeopendns peers directly with such an eyeball network? and in that case maybe they have an agreement to accept traffic from the 100.64 space? They’d only be able to do one such agreement per routing environment. Managing that would be _UGLY_ for the first one and __UGLY__ at scale for anything more than one. It also pretty much eliminates potential for geographic diversity and anycast for a provider in a local geography. Certainly not something I’d choose to do if I were OpenDNS unless someone arrived with a very large truck full of gold, diamonds, or other valuable hard assets. Owen
