was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918"
trejrco at gmail.com
Wed Aug 6 14:24:14 CDT 2008
But ... that's part of why RFC1918 is used, so they have this fairly large
address range to play with.
And remember, what one person calls inefficiency, another calls
flexibility. Either (or neither) may be right!
Oh, and I don't think we can say RFC1918 doesn't work today - obviously it
does, just possibly inducing lots of head-aches.
And yes, same ideas occur - just with larger numbers :) - in v6.
To keep the analogy complete, reference ULAs ... with a (more
stringent?) random component.
(I put a question mark on that just because you can break the spec
and configure non-random ones <grumble>)
>From: Darden, Patrick S. [mailto:darden at armc.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:19 PM
>To: Marshall Eubanks; Joel Jaeggli
>Cc: nanog at nanog.org
>Subject: RE: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918"
>Actually, rereading this, I agree. My experience is large companies take
>all, using huge swathes inefficiently, instead of doing it right. In my
>previous post I was answering the question I thought you were asking, not
>your real question.
>I agree with you both.
>I think that RFC1918 Could work, if companies used it correctly.... Again,
>though, I have only run into one company that used it correctly. IPV6, you
>are our only hope! (obiwan kenobi, you are our only hope!)
>> 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.
More information about the NANOG