[21558] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Exodus / Clue problems
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Phil Howard)
Mon Nov 16 19:31:59 1998
From: Phil Howard <phil@whistler.intur.net>
To: dts@senie.com (Daniel Senie)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:00:47 -0600 (CST)
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <365092EA.55A42C20@senie.com> from "Daniel Senie" at Nov 16, 98 04:02:34 pm
> Define "network border." I used to block all traffic from or to RFC1918
> addresses, but my present upstream is using 10.0.0.0/8 and
> 172.16.0.0/16, at least, for their internal use. So, the IP address of
> the WAN interface on my router connecting to them has a 10.0.0.0/8
> address. If I block incoming traffic to 10.0.0.0/8, they can't monitor
> my net.
They are using (wasting) the whole 10.0.0.0/8 on one LAN? Sheesh!
I've picked 172.30.0.0/16 to be divided up into 16384 /30's to use for
numbered links. I'll probably choose another piece of address space
in 172.16.0.0/12 for a LAN for a few special things like "permanent"
DNS server addresses that will "never" change. My current thinking is
to leave 10.0.0.0/8 workable between customers, let 172.16.0.0/12 be for
special uses, and let customers do with 192.168.0.0/16 whatever they
wish. There's no real ideal solution.
How far from the intent of RFC1918 has that gone?
--
-- *-----------------------------* Phil Howard KA9WGN * --
-- | Inturnet, Inc. | Director of Internet Services | --
-- | Business Internet Solutions | eng at intur.net | --
-- *-----------------------------* philh at intur.net * --
