[102608] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 2008.02.20 NANOG 42 IPv4 PTR queries for unallocated space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Thu Feb 21 05:46:31 2008
Cc: "<michael.dillon@bt.com>" <michael.dillon@bt.com>,
"nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
To: Joseph Jackson <jjackson@aninetworks.net>
In-Reply-To: <695277448C537A469D28FF68D0938C836E12E6CC02@EXMBX04.exchhosting.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:43:00 +0100
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 21 feb 2008, at 11:07, Joseph Jackson wrote:
> How come RFC 1918 addresses aren't real enough?
Because they look like RFC 1918 addresses.=10=10
On 21 feb 2008, at 11:30, Andy Davidson wrote:
>> For instance, I do a training course where people need to configure =20=
>> routers, and I use addresses out of 96.0.0.0/8 for that, because it =20=
>> has to be clear that we're talking about real addresses and not RFC =20=
>> 1918 stuff.
> Do you think you could consider some of the rfc3330 ranges like TEST-=20=
> NET - 192.0.2.0/24 - or if you need more than one network, =20
> 191.255.0.0/16 ?
Nothing is impossible, but shoehorning stuff into a small range =20
doesn't make for a realistic training setup.
>> Would it be useful for IANA to publish the order in which they're =20
>> going to allocate /8s? That way, it's easier for people to plan =20
>> getting out of the way of real deployment in time.
> Well it's a pretty safe bet that most of today's unused /8s will be =20=
> allocated within the next couple of years !
That's true. (Well, it's more like three years: there are currently =20
41 /8s available and last year, 14 were allocated to the RIRs.)
I guess that means that people who want to use "off-label" address =20
space should probably use the legacy /8s that are assigned but don't =20
show up in the routing table.=
