[94486] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Smith)
Wed Jan 24 08:01:54 2007
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:28:53 +1030
From: Mark Smith <nanog@fa1c52f96c54f7450e1ffb215f29991e.nosense.org>
To: Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@cisco.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <5B8A665D-0486-43DE-ADB9-1294C1626E13@cisco.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 02:07:06 -0800
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@cisco.com> wrote:
> Of course I understand this, but I also understand that if one can
> get away with RFC1918 addresses on a non-Internet-connected network,
> it's not a bad idea to do so in and of itself; quite the opposite, in
> fact, as long as one is sure one isn't buying trouble down the road.
>
The problem is that you can't be sure that if you use RFC1918 today you
won't be bitten by it's non-uniqueness property in the future. When
you're asked to diagnose a fault with a device with the IP address
192.168.1.1, and you've got an unknown number of candidate devices
using that address, you really start to see the value in having world
wide unique, but not necessarily publically visible addressing.
--
"Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly
alert."
- Bruce Schneier, "Beyond Fear"
