[52753] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Who does source address validation? (was Re: what's that smel
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (James Smith)
Thu Oct 10 13:50:00 2002
From: James Smith <jsmith@PRESIDIO.com>
To: "'nanog@merit.edu'" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 13:46:52 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C27085.0454E8F0
Content-Type: text/plain
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jared Mauch [mailto:jared@puck.Nether.net]
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 12:59 PM
> To: Iljitsch van Beijnum
> Cc: Richard A Steenbergen; nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Who does source address validation? (was Re: what's that
> smell?)
>
> People number out of 1918 space primarily for a few
> reasons, be them good or not:
>
> 1) Internal use
> 2) Cost involved.. nobody else needs to telnet to my p2p
> links but me, and i don't want to pay {regional_rir} for my
> internal use to reduce costs
> 3) "security" of not being a "publicly" accessible
> network.
>
I'll stick my neck out (others from my company monitor this list...) and say
that we are not really worried about #3. With #1, if we could get more
space, we would not need/want to (except for the test lab) to use RFC1918
space. This leads to #2, which is the issue.
We are a growing company. We are expanding our list of regional offices,
plus our home office is growing. I'd rather use globally unique addresses
for all this, but the cost of additional space (we have outgrown the /24 we
have traditionally used), the cost of an ASN, and the cheapness of NAT and
"bandwidth/link managers" have driven us to use RFC1918 space.
As long as the cost and ease of doing global unique addresses and BGP is
greater than the cost and ease of a NAT/link manager setup, businesses will
continue to use RFC1918 space, and ignore (or remain blissfully unaware of)
the pain it may or may not cause others.
James H. Smith II
I speak for me, and what I observe, which gets me in enough trouble as it
is...
------_=_NextPart_001_01C27085.0454E8F0
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: Who does source address validation? (was Re: what's that =
smell?)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> From: Jared Mauch [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:jared@puck.Nether.net">mailto:jared@puck.Nether.net</A>]<=
/FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 12:59 =
PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> To: Iljitsch van Beijnum</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Cc: Richard A Steenbergen; =
nanog@merit.edu</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> Subject: Re: Who does source address =
validation? (was Re: what's that</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> smell?)</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> People number =
out of 1918 space primarily for a few</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> reasons, be them good or not:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> 1) Internal =
use</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> 2) Cost =
involved.. nobody else needs to telnet to my p2p</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> links but me, and i don't want to pay =
{regional_rir} for my</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> internal use to reduce costs</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> 3) =
"security" of not being a "publicly" =
accessible</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> network.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>> </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I'll stick my neck out (others from my company =
monitor this list...) and say that we are not really worried about #3. =
With #1, if we could get more space, we would not need/want to (except =
for the test lab) to use RFC1918 space. This leads to #2, which is the =
issue.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>We are a growing company. We are expanding our list =
of regional offices, plus our home office is growing. I'd rather use =
globally unique addresses for all this, but the cost of additional =
space (we have outgrown the /24 we have traditionally used), the cost =
of an ASN, and the cheapness of NAT and "bandwidth/link =
managers" have driven us to use RFC1918 space.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>As long as the cost and ease of doing global unique =
addresses and BGP is greater than the cost and ease of a NAT/link =
manager setup, businesses will continue to use RFC1918 space, and =
ignore (or remain blissfully unaware of) the pain it may or may not =
cause others. </FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>James H. Smith II </FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I speak for me, and what I observe, which gets me in =
enough trouble as it is...</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C27085.0454E8F0--
