Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: IANA reserved Address Space
From: Jay Hennigan <jay () west net>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 23:29:18 -0700 (PDT)

On Sat, 31 May 2003 bdragon () gweep net wrote:

The only difference between routed and unrouted (note the difference
between that and routable) is consensus. There is nothing inherent in the bits
which prevents RFC1918 from being routed globally. There is no requirement
to use RFC1918 for NAT.

Correct, an error in terminology on my part.  Substitute "routed" or
"public" for the first and "RFC1918" or "private" for the second.  I think
we all know what was meant.

Therefore, your argument doesn't hold water.

The minor error in terminology doesn't really affect what I was trying to
say.  There may be valid reasons where, within a closed lab environment, it
could be useful to use public, routed space not assigned to the entity that
is operating the lab.  I listed some.

If the entity for some stupid reason can't use RFC1918, they can and should
use their _own_ address space for the balance.

And if the reason isn't stupid, and proper safeguards are in place, and
they're not training people to do this anywhere BUT within a closed lab
environment, then it makes no difference what addresses they use.  Even
if the reason is stupid, no one outside the lab will know or care.

If it makes it easier to debug problems with decimal or binary addresses
that are easy to parse, or to paste configurations from a production
system to a lab for troubleshooting, so what?

Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Administration - jay () west net
WestNet:  Connecting you to the planet.  805 884-6323      WB6RDV
NetLojix Communications, Inc.  -  http://www.netlojix.com/

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
  • Re: IANA reserved Address Space Jay Hennigan (Jun 01)
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]