On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Andrew Deason <adea...@sinenomine.net> wrote:
> Any thoughts? If one must do this (and it is a pragmatic solution), then one might want to add in the RFC 6598(*) CGN reserved shared address range of 100.64.0.0/10 since if one sees that, that means the user is likely directly connected to a MSO using CGN (rather than using a low-end consumer NAT box). And CGN boxen may also have low timeouts (your MSO will vary). Gary (*) I was a pragmatic proponent of the shared address space allocation while it was in the ARIN process for the same reasons; It is not what I would prefer, but you sometimes have to do what you have to do to make things work, and CGN(**) was happening. (**) And while I would also prefer there be no CGNs, I also understand that they too are a pragmatic solution. _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list OpenAFS-devel@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
