[111232] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matlock, Kenneth L)
Mon Feb 2 12:19:21 2009
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 10:18:58 -0700
In-Reply-To: <0016364ee1e4a41fda0461f2b58a@google.com>
From: "Matlock, Kenneth L" <MatlockK@exempla.org>
To: <mikelieman@gmail.com>, <sthaug@nethelp.no>, <pstewart@nexicomgroup.net>,
<nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I've even seen at a previous place (note: 'previous') that decided to
use 40.x.x.x for their internal IP space....
I find it hard to believe a company can mismanage their IP space that
10.0.0.0, 192.168.0.0, and 172.(16-31).0.0 are all used up, but then
again, I shouldn't be surprised.=20
Back in '96 or so, an ISP I was working at was giving out /24's for a
14.4 dialup account....
Ken Matlock
Network Analyst
Exempla Healthcare
(303) 467-4671
matlockk@exempla.org
-----Original Message-----
From: mikelieman@gmail.com [mailto:mikelieman@gmail.com]=20
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 10:16 AM
To: sthaug@nethelp.no; pstewart@nexicomgroup.net; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
Some nitwits just grab one out of fat air.
I've seen 192.169.xx and 192.254.xx randomly used before.
On Feb 2, 2009 12:03pm, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:
> > What reason could you possibly have to use non RFC 1918 space on a
>
>
> > closed network? It's very bad practice - unfortunately I do see it
done
>
>
> > sometimes....
>
>
>
>
>
> There are sometimes good reasons to do this, for instance to ensure
>
>
> uniqueness in the face of mergers and acquisitions.
>
>
>
>
>
> Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
>
>
>
>
>
>
