[111227] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bruce Grobler)
Mon Feb 2 11:12:41 2009
From: "Bruce Grobler" <bruce@yoafrica.com>
To: "'Michael Butler'" <imb@protected-networks.net>, <trey@kingfisherops.com>
In-Reply-To: <49871828.5020908@protected-networks.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 18:10:30 +0200
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Most ISP's, if not all, null route 1.0.0.0/8 therefore you shouldn't
encounter any problems using it in a private network.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Butler [mailto:imb@protected-networks.net]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 5:59 PM
To: trey@kingfisherops.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Trey Darley 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.
This is a *VERY BAD IDEA* - why not take the hit now rather than
exponentiate the problem and, in so doing, make it nearly impossible to
reverse later?
Michael
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAkmHGCgACgkQQv9rrgRC1JLWrACfTxrfxz/6DFCCByldBqMv/MjL
ssYAn3Se0GRA+s3Szn9dMUN8c7AlQzj/
=FZWG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
