Google wants to be your Internet

Roland Dobbins rdobbins at cisco.com
Wed Jan 24 13:23:10 UTC 2007


On Jan 24, 2007, at 4:58 AM, Mark Smith wrote:

> 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
> 192.168.1.1, 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.


That's what I meant by the 'as long as one is sure one isn't buying  
trouble down the road' part.  Having encountered problems with  
overlapping address space many times in the past, I'm quite aware of  
the pain, thanks.

;>

RFC1918 was created for a reason, and it is used (and misused, we all  
understand that) today by many network operators for a reason.  It is  
up to the architects and operators of networks to determine whether  
or not they should make use of globally-unique addresses or RFC1918  
addresses on a case-by-case basis; making use of RFC1918 addressing  
is not an inherently stupid course of action, its appropriateness in  
any given situation is entirely subjective.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins at cisco.com> // 408.527.6376 voice

                     Technology is legislation.

                         -- Karl Schroeder







More information about the NANOG mailing list