On: ICANN proposes creating .INTERNAL domain to do the same job as 192.168.x.x

[iscoelho]

This is not correct.

RFC6598 defines CGNAT IP space as 100.64.0.0/10 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6598). RFC1918 (private IP space) is a different allocation.

[cesarb → iscoelho]

> RFC6598 defines CGNAT IP space as 100.64.0.0/10

That's a relatively recent RFC; there are ISPs which have been using CGNAT for longer than that, and they do use RFC1918 addresses for their CGNAT (for instance, I know of one which used something in the 10.x.x.x range for CGNAT, which works in practice since most domestic networks use something in the 192.168.x.x range).

[iscoelho → cesarb]

I'm familiar with CGNAT mostly on Cellular Networks. VZW (debatably largest CGNAT in USA?) uses RFC6598.

I'd be surprised (but not too surprised honestly) if the other ones haven't cleaned up the skeletons in their routers yet.

[ArchOversight → iscoelho]

Squatting on DoD IP space was also the norm for an ISP I worked at...

[iscoelho → ArchOversight]

Some people just want to watch the world burn.