Google wants to be your Internet

Mark Smith nanog at
Wed Jan 24 12:58:53 UTC 2007

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 02:07:06 -0800
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins at> wrote:

> Of course I understand this, but I also understand that if one can  
> get away with RFC1918 addresses on a non-Internet-connected network,  
> it's not a bad idea to do so in and of itself; quite the opposite, in  
> fact, as long as one is sure one isn't buying trouble down the road.

The problem is that you can't be sure that if you use RFC1918 today you
won't be bitten by it's non-uniqueness property in the future. When
you're asked to diagnose a fault with a device with the IP address, and you've got an unknown number of candidate devices
using that address, you really start to see the value in having world
wide unique, but not necessarily publically visible addressing.


        "Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly
                                   - Bruce Schneier, "Beyond Fear"

More information about the NANOG mailing list