[58784] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IANA reserved Address Space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bdragon@gweep.net)
Sat May 31 19:05:30 2003
To: jay@west.net (Jay Hennigan)
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 19:05:03 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.51.0305302337130.8608@htf.fo.jrfg.arg> from "Jay Hennigan" at May 30, 2003 11:53:32 PM
From: bdragon@gweep.net
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> On Fri, 30 May 2003 bdragon@gweep.net wrote:
>
> >
> > > I'm tasked with coming up with an IP plan for an very large lab
> > > network. I want to maximize route table manageability and
> > > router/firewall log readability. I was thinking of building this
> > > lab with the following address space:
> > >
> > > 1.0.0.0 /8
> > > 10.0.0.0 /8
> > > 100.0.0.0 /8
> >
> > I encourage my competitors to do this.
> >
> > or read another way, this is fairly stupid, but as log as
> > this stupidity doesn't affect me, I don't care. However the
> > person tasked with cleaning tha crap up behind you may not feel
> > the same.
> >
> > Doing something right, the first time saves having to do it over
> > again and again and again and again.
>
> If this is a test lab or a learning/practice lab where the users will be
> simulating real-world scenarios and/or doing NAT and other things that
> involve public/private addressing issues, then it would IMHO be suitable
> to use a mix of reserved private space and routable space as appropriate.
The only difference between routed and unrouted (note the difference
between that and routable) is consensus. There is nothing inherent in the bits
which prevents RFC1918 from being routed globally. There is no requirement
to use RFC1918 for NAT.
Therefore, your argument doesn't hold water.
If the entity for some stupid reason can't use RFC1918, they can and should
use their _own_ address space for the balance.
