IAB and "private" numbering

Sun Nov 13 02:12:13 UTC 2005

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 04:40:20PM +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Tony Tauber wrote:
> > >
> > > The registries (including IANA as their root) should provide just
> > > that, a place to register the use of number resources to avoid collisions.
> > > I'm thinking that "private" number spaces should probably be used
> > > advisedly if not deprecated outright.
> >
> > RIR's are taking heat (or some finger pointing atleast) for allocations
> > that don't appear in the public route table. There are many reasons why
>
> i rant, yet again.
>

doh!

> 	what is this "the" public routing table?  where does one
> 	get it?  in my 25 years of networking I have NEVER seen it.
> 	i am convinced that it is a fictional as the "public" Internet.
> 	or the "DFZ" ... they do not exist, except in the fevered
> 	imaginations of marketing droids... and the virus is more virulent
> 	than the H5N1 strain.  Note that it affects normally sane engineers
> 	who KNOW better.
>

'public routing table' == Internet

nothing more, nothing less. this is distinct from SIPRnet and some
portions of NIPRnet, or other 'private' networks out there.

> 	back in the SRInic days, there was the "connected" and "unconnected"
> 	databases.  ... to mark prefixes that were connected to the ARPAnet
> 	and those that were in "private" networks, like CSnet, NSFnet, and
> 	enterprise networks.  Tony is right in this respect, RFC1918 space
> 	is a feeble attempt to get around/past the lack of address space
> 	that became apparent in IPv4 ... with IPv6, there is no real
> 	reason to try and recreate private space (leaving aside renumbering)

I don't believe there is a 'rfc1918' in v6 (yet), I agree that it doesn't
seem relevant, damaging perhaps though :)

>
> 	IMHO, assigning globally unique prefixes to those who utilize IP
> 	protocols, regardsless of whom else they choose to "see" via routing
> 	is the right course.  every other attempt to split the assignements
> 	into "us" vs. "them" has had less than satisfactory results.

agreed