Sure… The point was that short of that, anyone in their right mind wouldn’t bother.
Owen > On Sep 12, 2018, at 7:10 AM, Kenny Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > > For a truckload of gold, I’m pretty sure most of us would make that work J > > Kenny > > From: NANOG <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Owen > DeLong > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 10:04 PM > To: Christopher Morrow <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Cc: nanog list <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Re: OpenDNS CGNAT Issues > > > > > On Sep 11, 2018, at 21:58 , Christopher Morrow <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 9:06 PM Jerry Cloe <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> 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
