[58025] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Get as much IP space as you ever dreamed of, was: Re: Looking
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Payne)
Tue Apr 29 12:18:47 2003
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 12:18:19 -0400
From: John Payne <john@sackheads.org>
To: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>,
Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
Cc: "nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304291035480.27272-100000@MrServer>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--On Tuesday, April 29, 2003 10:37 AM +0100 "Stephen J. Wilcox"
<steve@telecomplete.co.uk> wrote:
> Further to my earlier post.. a large global private network requiring
> unique space at many sites, they use 9/8 .. why not use 10/8 ???
> (renumbering reasons aside that is!)
One reason apart from renumbering, before VPNs were a popular phrase, IBM
had a large multinational secure private IP network that many IBM customers
used to connect their various sites, and interconnect to vendors and such.
Unsurprisingly, IBM also used this network to connect sites together
(before they built a separate Intranet network) - and so globally
uniqueness was needed.
> Recall the counter argument from Stephen Sprunk was that it needed a per
> site allocation from a registry, and yet these guys are managing just
> fine without it!
There is a per-site allocation from a registry, just an IBM internal one.
There is a vast difference between managing uniqueness within an
organisation (however large and unwieldly), and managing uniqueness between
organisations.
(Yes, NAT, ipsec tunnels, ipv6 blah blah blah would be better, but why
isn't everyone here completely switched over to ipv6?)
