|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: RFC 1918
>>>>> "Eric" == Eric A Hall <[email protected]> writes: >> Imagine that you inherit a network where RFC1918 addresses are >> used on most or all backbone links. Eric> Imagine you inherit two of them, and they're both using Eric> 10.1.x.x. That's the kind of trouble that end-users have as Eric> well. When their networks are running 10.1.1.x and they get Eric> ICMP messages from remote networks with that address, all Eric> kinds of problems can occur. Agreed. Eric> When ISPs choose to mark their packets with Internet-illegal Eric> addresses, they are contributing to these problems. Sorry, Eric> but you're not supposed to be using these addresses anyway. >> Because it's reasonably difficult to get real addresses from >> ARIN Eric> ARIN is absolutely the root cause of the 1918 Eric> problem. They're the principle driver behind the NAT market Eric> by extension as well. If it weren't for their qualification Eric> rules, the Internet would work a helluva lot better. Looking at the BGP tables, I see lots of holes in the address space. A particularly big one is almost a quarter of IPv4 space -- 65.0.0.0 - 126.255.255.255, which is listed as reserved by ARIN. Since IPv6 can be seen on the horizon, maybe they should start allocating some of this, and stop forcing people into problematic situations like using RFC1918 addresses in the core by artificially creating scarcity? And what about 5.0.0.0/8 and 7/8 and 11/8 etc. that are all listed as allocated but are not used. Due to the scarcity of this public resource, should there not be some sort of "use it or lose it" policy? Cheers, -w -- Will Waites \________ [email protected]\____________________________ Idiosyntactix Ministry of Research and Development\
|