Get as much IP space as you ever dreamed of, was: Re: Looking to buy IPv4 addresses from class C swamp
todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net
Thu May 29 10:52:46 UTC 2003
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve at telecomplete.co.uk>
To: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey at worldnet.att.net>
Cc: "Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS" <billstewart at att.com>;
<nanog at trapdoor.merit.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 5:43 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Get as much IP space as you ever dreamed of, was: Re:
Looking to buy IPv4 addresses from class C swamp
> On Tue, 27 May 2003, todd glassey wrote:
> > What I dont understand is the need to stay 1:1 routable. Most all of you
> > larger ISP's could have your own private IP Space by simply running a
> > infrastructure. Why not do it for all your customers?
> And what if you want to host a webserver or mailserver?
What about it? - You set common external-DNS on the customer facing side to
refer that address to the tunnel manager and the TM then takes care of the
packet's rewriting. Or did I miss something here?
As to public publishing, create a virtual server on a set of the ISP's well
known addresses and stack the servers up. What's the problem?
> Why stop there, what about with local exchanges in the PSTN, you could put
> towns on their own extension based PBX and save time in having to allocate
> > Todd
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS" <billstewart at att.com>
> > To: <nanog at trapdoor.merit.edu>
> > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 11:27 PM
> > Subject: RE: Re: Get as much IP space as you ever dreamed of, was: Re:
> > Looking to buy IPv4 addresses from class C swamp
> > [Let's try this again without fat-fingering the Send button :-)]
> > Seems like an obvious case for using IPv6.
> > RFC2373 site-local addresses assign a /48,
> > with 16 bits of subnet ID and 64 bits of host ID.
> > The average location probably doesn't have 2**16 extranets on one DMZ;
> > picking a random value usually yields one that nobody you're talking to
> > is also talking to, so almost nobody needs to use NAT for this kind of
> > thing,
> > assuming you plan to tunnel them.
More information about the NANOG