[22103] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: comments please
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Manning)
Tue Dec 8 15:14:27 1998
From: Bill Manning <bmanning@ISI.EDU>
To: eljazzar@eetdata.com (Mohamad Eljazzar)
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 11:39:41 -0800 (PST)
Cc: bmanning@ISI.EDU, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.96.981208093302.25588A-100000@eclipse.executone-tn.com> from "Mohamad Eljazzar" at Dec 8, 98 09:44:32 am
>
> On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, Bill Manning wrote:
>
> > 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 192.168.0.0/16 are the prefixes called out
> > in RFC 1918. They are only for use in private networks that wish to use
> > the IP protocols. Network operations and End System administrators should
> > ensure that these prefixes is not coded into systems or routed through any
> > Internet infrastructure. Since they have the appearance of "normal" prefixes,
> > special precautions should be taken to ensure that they are not propagated
> > in the Internet.
>
> What about instances where an I/NSPs extends its use of these addresses to
> the customer's boundary router? This becomes epseically important if the
> customer happens to have been doing its homework and using RFC1918
> addresses only to find (after signing the contract) that they collide with
> the provider's addresses. Who wins in that case?
>
> Mohamad Eljazzar
> EET Data Communications
Well, RFC 1918 says these prefixes should not be propogated over the Internet
but can be used on/in Intranets. I occasionally find it tough to discriminate
between the two ideas.
--
--bill
