[154224] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: technical contact at ATT Wireless
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Thu Jun 28 23:21:30 2012
In-Reply-To: <CADb+6TBYXvu1vhb=Mgfy6bTa+R_-J0P9Sfyq7UaXeX5MF0==LQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 23:20:46 -0400
To: Joel Maslak <jmaslak@antelope.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jun 28, 2012, at 10:35 PM, Joel Maslak <jmaslak@antelope.net> wrote:
> Which is why enterprises generally shouldn't use RFC1918 IPs for
> servers when clients are located on networks not controlled by the
> same entity. Servers that serve multiple administration domains (such
> as VPN users on AT&T - or on some random home Linksys box) probably
> shouldn't be addressed using addresses that conceivably could be used
> at the other end. But I'm probably fighting a losing battle saying
> that...
I've worked at places that do some combination of all public, all private an=
d a mix..
Usually the places that work best have all public as they avoid mtu and othe=
r issues that arise. I expect the enterprise world to start coming around in=
the years to come to understand how they have damaged networking for the co=
mpanies.
- Jared=
