was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918"
tme at multicasttech.com
Wed Aug 6 11:46:33 CDT 2008
On Aug 6, 2008, at 12:36 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> Darden, Patrick S. wrote:
>> Most organizations that would be doing this would not randomly pick
>> out subnets, if I understand you. They would randomly pick out a
>> subnet, then they would sub-subnet that based on a scheme. I
>> believe this is the intent of RFC 1918. Not to apply a random IP
>> scheme, but to randomly pick a network from the appropriate sized
>> Private Networking ranges, then apply a well thought out scheme to
>> the section of IP addresses you chose.
>> E.g. 10.150.x.y/16 as their network. X could be physical
>> positioning, and Y could be purposive in nature. 10.150.0.0 as
>> basement, 10.150.1.0 as first floor, 10.150.2.0 as second floor,
>> etc. 1-20 as switches/routers, 21-50 as servers and static
>> workstations, 51-100 as printers, and 101--200 as DHCP scope for
>> PCs, and 201-254 for remote login DHCP scope (vpn, dialup, etc.)
>> Yes, I think a large private network would work this way. RFC 1918
>> wants it to work this way (imho).
> How much of 10/8 and 172.16/12 does an organization with ~80k
> employees, on 5 continents, with hundreds of extranet connections to
> partners and suppliers in addition to numerous aquistions and the
> occasional subsidiary who also use 10/8 and 172.16/12 use?
In my experience, effectively all of it.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:joelja at bogus.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:21 AM
>> To: Darden, Patrick S.
>> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918"
>> Darden, Patrick S. wrote:
>>> *randomly* from the reserved pool of private addresses, when
>> You're supposed to choose ula-v6 /48 prefixs randomly as well...
>> Any bets on whether that routinely happens?
>> While you're home can probably randomly allocate subnets out of a /
>> 8 or /12 for a while without collisions, nobody that's actually
>> building a subnetting plan for a large private network is going to
>> be able to get away with that in v4.
More information about the NANOG