[111234] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Mon Feb 2 12:39:01 2009
To: "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@druid.net>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 02 Feb 2009 12:20:25 EST."
<20090202122025.ffa25a66.darcy@druid.net>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 12:38:47 -0500
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1233596327_15229P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 12:20:25 EST, "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" said:
> On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:03:57 +0100 (CET)
> 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.
>
> How does that help? If you are renumbering due to a merger, couldn't
> you just agree on separate private space just as easily?
They don't renumber, they end up just double-NAT or triple-NAT betweem the
merged units. I think one poor soul posted here that they had
quintuple-NAT'ing going on due to a long string of mergers....
--==_Exmh_1233596327_15229P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFJhy+ncC3lWbTT17ARAovdAJ4pE84WsDpmkGI0GqjnrL1RYSnaVACg3pOL
YbVTi/75OqBtmiAymiE/vJQ=
=IYMB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1233596327_15229P--
