Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
skeeve at skeeve.org
Tue Feb 3 22:47:41 UTC 2009
OK, I will make an (what looks to this list) embarrassing admission.
We use 18.104.22.168/8 for our internal ranges, but this is on a small scale.
We do it because of the kind of business we do... we manage many other much
larger networks which already use every possible overlapping RFC1918 network
you can imagine... we have half a dozen networks using 192.168.0, and even
more using many varied masks in the 10.0.0.0/8. We already have issues with
the overlapping networks as is, without making it worse for us by using on
I chose to go the 22.214.171.124 path because:
- It wont conflict with my customers and us doing our business
- As long as it is not APNIC who gets it, the chances of it conflicting will
be extremely minimal (rolls dice)
- We don't design customer networks with non-RFC1918 ranges unless there is
some extreme reason
- Yes it is potentially allocate-able in the future, but if it happens I
will deal with it then - just renumber or see the next point
- We will be fully IPv6 within 6-9 months with a separate VLAN which will
support legacy equipment with NAT-PT... this will still be an issue
interconnecting to customer networks, but we will think of something.
From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org]
Sent: Tuesday, 3 February 2009 6:48 AM
To: Bruce Grobler
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
On Feb 2, 2009, at 8:10 AM, Bruce Grobler wrote:
> Most ISP's, if not all, null route 126.96.36.199/8 therefore you shouldn't
> encounter any problems using it in a private network.
Is this true?
This will cause endless entertainment when IANA allocates 188.8.131.52/8
sometime within the next two or three years...
More information about the NANOG