[58779] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IANA reserved Address Space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen J. Wilcox)
Sat May 31 14:22:03 2003
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 19:21:36 +0100 (BST)
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>
To: Gerald <gcoon@inch.com>
Cc: Brennan_Murphy@NAI.com, <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20030530183944.G54195@kod.inch.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
<snip blah>
> Since all of the replies have been pretty close to the same (Use RFC1918
> ...etc), I'd like to rephrase it to answer a curiosity of mine.
The answers seemed correct, rephrasing wont change current systems or policies
to suit you!
> RFC1918 is a set number of IP addresses. If you are working on a private
> network lab
Use anything you like, its private.
> that will be on the internet eventually or have parts on the
> internet and exceeds the total number of IPV4 addressing set aside in
Follow the current policy for public Internet Address space, get what IPs you
need, implement NAT where/if possible.
> RFC1918, and IPV6 private addressing is not an option, what can you do? (I
thats the way it is, take it or leave it..
Steve
> know it's a stretch, but I think it asks specifically what Brennan wants
> to know and what I'm curious about now)
>
> IPV6 would seem to be the best answer overall since it has already been
> determined the solution for limited addressing, but there is still
> equipment/software and such that does not support it.
>
> Brennan, is a mix of IPV6 and IPV4 private addressing an option for you? I
> do have to agree wholeheartedly that using address space not assigned to
> you is unprofessional, and will cause someone headaches later even if it
> is not you.
>
> Gerald
>
