IANA reserved Address Space

Brennan_Murphy at NAI.com Brennan_Murphy at NAI.com
Fri May 30 12:49:28 UTC 2003

Others have pointed out that I should stick to
RFC 1918 address space. But again, this is a
lab network and to use the words of another,
one of the things I want to do is make it much
easier to "parse visually" my route tables.
Think of it as a "metric system" type of numbering
plan.  The 1 and 100 nets would not be advertised
via BGP obviously...not a hijack situation at all.

If I take into account the possibility that this
lab will have later requirements to connect to
the internet, all I have to do is have a NAT plan
in place...one that even takes into account that
the 1 and 100 nets could become available some
day, correct?

Thanks to those who have responded so far.

-----Original Message-----
From: bmanning at karoshi.com [mailto:bmanning at karoshi.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 8:08 AM
To: Murphy, Brennan
Cc: nanog at merit.edu
Subject: Re: IANA reserved Address Space

networks 1 and 100 are reserved for future delegation.
network 10 is delegated for private networks, such as your

if you use networks 1 and 100, you are hijacking these

that said, as long as your lab is never going to connect
to the Internet,  you may want to consider using the following

> I'm tasked with coming up with an IP plan for an very large lab 
> network. I want to maximize route table manageability and 
> router/firewall log readability. I was thinking of building this lab 
> with the following address space:
> /8
> /8
> /8
> I need 3 distinct zones which is why I wanted to separate them out. In

> any case, I was wondering about the status of the 1 /8 and the 100 /8 
> networks. What does it mean that they are IANA reserved? Reserved for 
> what? http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
> Anyone else ever use IANA reserved address spacing for
> lab networks? Is there anything special I need to know?
> I'm under the impression that as long as I stay away
> from special use address space, I've got no worries. 
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3330.txt
> Thanks,
> BM

More information about the NANOG mailing list