[96103] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Question on 7.0.0.0/8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Morris)
Mon Apr 16 20:53:27 2007
Reply-To: <swm@emanon.com>
From: "Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com>
To: "'Joseph S D Yao'" <jsdy@center.osis.gov>,
<michael.dillon@bt.com>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:52:21 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20070416231254.GD27453@core.center.osis.gov>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
They could always configure destination-based NAT and perhaps "assist" by
allocating 10/8 space for those networks if they so choose to reach them!
(smirk)
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of
Joseph S D Yao
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 7:13 PM
To: michael.dillon@bt.com
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Question on 7.0.0.0/8
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 11:25:58PM +0100, michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
...
> And I know a company that has been using 1/8, 2/8, 3/8, 4/8, 5/8, 6/8,
> 7/8 and 8/8 for many years, also behind NAT or on non-Internet
> connected networks. But that is not what I am talking about here.
...
And what happens if the legitimate owners of those already allocated start
advertising routes for them on the public Internet, or IANA decides to
release some of those not already allocated? Those NATs, if single-NAT'ed,
will find themselves unable to reach those resources.
*sigh*
In fact, I think I have seen some of those on the public Internet, I could
be wrong.
--
Joe Yao
Analex Contractor
