|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: IANA reserved Address Space
On Sat, 31 May 2003 [email protected] wrote: > 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. Correct, an error in terminology on my part. Substitute "routed" or "public" for the first and "RFC1918" or "private" for the second. I think we all know what was meant. > Therefore, your argument doesn't hold water. The minor error in terminology doesn't really affect what I was trying to say. There may be valid reasons where, within a closed lab environment, it could be useful to use public, routed space not assigned to the entity that is operating the lab. I listed some. > If the entity for some stupid reason can't use RFC1918, they can and should > use their _own_ address space for the balance. And if the reason isn't stupid, and proper safeguards are in place, and they're not training people to do this anywhere BUT within a closed lab environment, then it makes no difference what addresses they use. Even if the reason is stupid, no one outside the lab will know or care. If it makes it easier to debug problems with decimal or binary addresses that are easy to parse, or to paste configurations from a production system to a lab for troubleshooting, so what? -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Administration - [email protected] WestNet: Connecting you to the planet. 805 884-6323 WB6RDV NetLojix Communications, Inc. - http://www.netlojix.com/ |