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 <kenny.tay...@kccd.edu> wrote: > > For a truckload of gold, I’m pretty sure most of us would make that work J > > Kenny > > From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+kenny.taylor=kccd....@nanog.org > <mailto: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 > <mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com>> > Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org <mailto: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
