[111222] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Mon Feb 2 11:01:03 2009
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <935ead450902020757j32efc29eu9abeef0d4b806e41@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 10:59:13 -0500
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Feb 2, 2009, at 10:57 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Trey Darley <trey@kingfisherops.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Some colleagues and I are running into a bit of a problem. We've been
>> using RFC 1918 Class A space but due to the way subnets have been
>> allocated we are pondering the use of public IP space. As the
>> network in
>> question is strictly closed I don't anticipate any problems with
>> this as
>> the addresses would be unambiguous within our environment. I'm
>> curious if
>> anyone else is doing this.
>
> I'd recommend against it, because even though the network is not
> connected to the Internet now you never know what the future holds.
> Even if it's never connected there are always things that seem to pop
> up and cause problems.
>
> Also, if you're address allocation policy has been so badly managed
> that you've run out of space in 10.0.0.0/8 adding more IPs to the pool
> isn't going to help for very long.
It will if you manage it better.
Fortunately, there's a /12 and a /24 still left. A /12 is more space
than 99.99% of the networks on the Internet need, so why wouldn't that
suffice instead of using "real" space.
--
TTFN,
patrick
