RE: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

["Matlock, Kenneth L" <MatlockK () exempla org>]

I've even seen at a previous place (note: 'previous') that decided to
use 40.x.x.x for their internal IP space....

I find it hard to believe a company can mismanage their IP space that
10.0.0.0, 192.168.0.0, and 172.(16-31).0.0 are all used up, but then
again, I shouldn't be surprised. 

Back in '96 or so, an ISP I was working at was giving out /24's for a
14.4 dialup account....

Ken Matlock
Network Analyst
Exempla Healthcare
(303) 467-4671
matlockk () exempla org
-----Original Message-----
From: mikelieman () gmail com [mailto:mikelieman () gmail com] 
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 10:16 AM
To: sthaug () nethelp no; pstewart () nexicomgroup net; nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Some nitwits just grab one out of fat air.

I've seen 192.169.xx and 192.254.xx randomly used before.


On Feb 2, 2009 12:03pm, sthaug () nethelp no wrote:
> > What reason could you possibly have to use non RFC 1918 space on a
>
>
> > closed network? It's very bad practice - unfortunately I do see it
done
> > sometimes....
>
>
>
>
>
> There are sometimes good reasons to do this, for instance to ensure
>
>
> uniqueness in the face of mergers and acquisitions.
>
>
>
>
>
> Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug () nethelp no