[86647] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IAB and "private" numbering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher L. Morrow)
Sat Nov 12 21:12:46 2005
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 02:12:13 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>
In-reply-to: <20051112172455.GC12051@vacation.karoshi.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 04:40:20PM +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Tony Tauber wrote:
> > >
> > > The registries (including IANA as their root) should provide just
> > > that, a place to register the use of number resources to avoid collisions.
> > > I'm thinking that "private" number spaces should probably be used
> > > advisedly if not deprecated outright.
> >
> > RIR's are taking heat (or some finger pointing atleast) for allocations
> > that don't appear in the public route table. There are many reasons why
>
> i rant, yet again.
>
doh!
> what is this "the" public routing table? where does one
> get it? in my 25 years of networking I have NEVER seen it.
> i am convinced that it is a fictional as the "public" Internet.
> or the "DFZ" ... they do not exist, except in the fevered
> imaginations of marketing droids... and the virus is more virulent
> than the H5N1 strain. Note that it affects normally sane engineers
> who KNOW better.
>
'public routing table' == Internet
nothing more, nothing less. this is distinct from SIPRnet and some
portions of NIPRnet, or other 'private' networks out there.
> back in the SRInic days, there was the "connected" and "unconnected"
> databases. ... to mark prefixes that were connected to the ARPAnet
> and those that were in "private" networks, like CSnet, NSFnet, and
> enterprise networks. Tony is right in this respect, RFC1918 space
> is a feeble attempt to get around/past the lack of address space
> that became apparent in IPv4 ... with IPv6, there is no real
> reason to try and recreate private space (leaving aside renumbering)
I don't believe there is a 'rfc1918' in v6 (yet), I agree that it doesn't
seem relevant, damaging perhaps though :)
>
> IMHO, assigning globally unique prefixes to those who utilize IP
> protocols, regardsless of whom else they choose to "see" via routing
> is the right course. every other attempt to split the assignements
> into "us" vs. "them" has had less than satisfactory results.
agreed
