IP backbone numbering/naming

Brian bri at sonicboom.org
Fri Nov 15 23:58:36 UTC 2002

Looking at the categories of hosts in the rfc, it would be my opinion that a
router that connects you to the outside world would fall into category3 and
therefore need globally unique space.  Just my opinion for the day.  Most
people frown heavily upon traffic that goes from one public node to another
crossing rfc1918 space, there were many threads in years past about @HOME's
use of this tactic.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve at telecomplete.co.uk>
To: "Steve Rude" <steve at rudedogg.com>
Cc: <nanog at merit.edu>
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: IP backbone numbering/naming

> Very old thread!
>    Private hosts can communicate with all other hosts
>    inside the enterprise, both public and private. However, they cannot
>    have IP connectivity to any host outside of the enterprise.
>    All other hosts will be public and will use globally unique address
>    space assigned by an Internet Registry.
> Then you have the policy that its best to filter any rfc1918 packets
> which then leads on to broken path mtu, missing traceroute hops... etc..
> for the tiny number of addresses you need on p2p why does your boss care.
> Steve
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Steve Rude wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I am trying to collect information about using RFC 1918 space on an ISP
> > backbone.  I have read the RFC several times, and I don't see where it
> > says that you cannot use 10/8 space to number your backbone links
> >
> > I know this is an old thread that has been rehashed several times, but
> > anyone please send me links or information that I can use to convince my
> > boss that we should use our arin alloc'd space on our backbone instead
> > using private space.
> >
> > Also if anyone has opinions on naming conventions for backbone such as
> > to or why not to even have dns resolution for your backbone and some
> > conventions please let me know.
> >
> > TIA!
> >
> > --
> > Steve Rude
> > steve at rudedogg.com
> >
> >

More information about the NANOG mailing list