Re: Get as much IP space as you ever dreamed of, was: Re: Looking to buy IPv4 addresses from class C swamp

["Stephen Sprunk" <stephen () sprunk org>]

Thus spake "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve () telecomplete co uk>
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Jack Bates wrote:
> > Actually, IBM confirmed that any announcements from 9/8 were
> > guaranteed to be bogus. IBM uses 9/8 internally. They use NAT to
> > convert 9/8 addresses back to routed addresses. One can imagine
> > that IBM has a large internal network globally with interconnects to
> > various partners. Yet many companies have found that utilization of
> > NAT when communicating with the public networks is a sound
> > addition to security.
>
> Further to my earlier post.. a large global private network requiring
> uniquespace at many sites, they use 9/8 .. why not use 10/8 ???
> (renumbering reasons aside that is!)

Because they expose subnets of 9/8 to customers of their data-processing
services and assign 9/8 addresses to customers as well if needed.  Those
customers are likely to be using 10/8 themselves, so a different block is
the only scalable solution not involving double NAT.

> Recall the counter argument from Stephen Sprunk was that it needed
> a per site allocation from a registry, and yet these guys are managing
> just fine without it!

Read my post again; IBM is a perfect example of using public addresses for
private purposes, which I found to be the preferred option (vs NAT).

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking