[3729] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Customer AS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David R. Conrad)
Sun Aug 18 00:37:33 1996
To: Sean Doran <smd@chops.icp.net>
cc: Per Gregers Bilse <bilse@EU.net>, nanog@merit.edu, davidc@apnic.net
In-reply-to: Your message of "17 Aug 1996 18:17:29 -0400."
<xoiivahac5i.fsf@chops.icp.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 13:12:12 +0900
From: "David R. Conrad" <davidc@apnic.net>
Hi,
>> What would happen if the customer used private address space and NAT
>> & ALGs to hook this into the two providers' CIDR space?
>I think that this is an excellent idea.
APNIC is in the process of doing something like this. We will be
requesting a /27 from the provider blocks of each of our peers at the
connection point we're at. Each Internet accessible machine will have
mutiple IP addresses per interface (VIF for Suns and ifconfig alias
for BSDI boxes). Our internal machines are, of course, behind a
firewall (TIS's Gauntlet) and using net 10.
Of course, we'll be burning much more address space than we 'need' to,
but we'll be adding 0 routing entries, even though we are multiply
multi-homed. However, as I'm only a registry person and I "don't run
real routers", it is possible I am missing something obvious that will
result in this not working. If so, please let me know before I turn
APNIC into slag...
>> Would the registries have problems with this approach?
Clearly APNIC doesn't.
>Would it matter if they did? :-)
Only when an ISP went to get more address space from their registry.
Regards,
-drc
P.S.: last I checked the routing tables were at 40853.
