was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918"

Wed Aug 6 16:46:33 UTC 2008

On Aug 6, 2008, at 12:36 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:

> Darden, Patrick S. wrote:
>> Most organizations that would be doing this would not randomly pick  
>> out subnets, if I understand you.  They would randomly pick out a  
>> subnet, then they would sub-subnet that based on a scheme.  I  
>> believe this is the intent of RFC 1918.  Not to apply a random IP  
>> scheme, but to randomly pick a network from the appropriate sized  
>> Private Networking ranges, then apply a well thought out scheme to  
>> the section of IP addresses you chose.
>> E.g. 10.150.x.y/16 as their network.  X could be physical  
>> positioning, and Y could be purposive in nature.  10.150.0.0 as  
>> basement, 10.150.1.0 as first floor, 10.150.2.0 as second floor,  
>> etc.  1-20 as switches/routers, 21-50 as servers and static  
>> workstations, 51-100 as printers, and 101--200 as DHCP scope for  
>> PCs, and 201-254 for remote login DHCP scope (vpn, dialup, etc.)
>> Yes, I think a large private network would work this way.  RFC 1918  
>> wants it to work this way (imho).
>
> How much of 10/8 and 172.16/12 does an organization with ~80k  
> employees, on 5 continents, with hundreds of extranet connections to  
> partners and suppliers in addition to numerous aquistions and the  
> occasional subsidiary who also use 10/8 and 172.16/12 use?

In my experience, effectively all of it.

Marshall

>
>
>> --p
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:joelja at bogus.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:21 AM
>> To: Darden, Patrick S.
>> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918"
>> Darden, Patrick S. wrote:
>>>   *randomly* from the reserved pool of private addresses, when
>> You're supposed to choose ula-v6 /48 prefixs randomly as well...  
>> Any bets on whether that routinely happens?
>> While you're home can probably randomly allocate subnets out of a / 
>> 8 or /12 for a while without collisions, nobody that's actually  
>> building a subnetting plan for a large private network is going to  
>> be able to get away with that in v4.
>
>