Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Feb 9, 2011, at 4:35 AM, Sam Stickland wrote:

> On 9 Feb 2011, at 02:43, "R. Benjamin Kessler" <Ben.Kessler () zenetra com> wrote:
>
> > > > From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herbert () gmail com] 
> >
> > > > "Let's just grab 2/8, it's not routed on the Internet..."
> >
> > +1
> >
> > I was consulting for a financial services firm in the late '90s that was acquired by a large east-coast bank; the 
> > bank's brilliant scheme was to renumber all new acquisitions *out* of RFC1918 space and into (at the time) bogon 
> > space.  
> >
> > If I recall, some of the arguments were "they were too big to fit into RFC1918 space" and by having all of their 
> > divisions in non-RFC1918 space it would make it easier for them to acquire new companies who used RFC1918 space 
> > internally.
>
> You don't have to trawl back to the late 90's to find this, I know of at least 3 or 4 large enterprises using large 
> chunks of public address (multiple /8's) that aren't their's /today/.
>
> This "works" because 1) the Internet is only accessed through proxies, 2) devices that require direct Internet access 
> are addressed out of registered address space (or NATed to registered address space), and 3) third party connections 
> to others enterprises are usually src/dst NATTed to the enterprise's own ranges (with the added benefit that this NAT 
> at 3rd party boundaries helps ensure symmetric traffic flow through firewalls). 
>
> And I've only worked at 3 or 4 large enterprises so it's probably safe to assume there's more! With my SP background 
> I was shocked and I'm not trying to defend this practice, but in the enterprise land it seems accepted. 
>
> Sam

On the freeways in the US, it's quite common for people to be doing 5-15 MPH over the
speed limit. This practice seems accepted.

I don't think there's a whole lot of sympathy, however, when someone receives a ticket for it.

Owen