nanog mailing list archives
Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner () cluebyfour org>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 11:04:57 -0500 (EST)
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009, Trey Darley wrote:
Some colleagues and I are running into a bit of a problem. We've been using RFC 1918 Class A space but due to the way subnets have been allocated we are pondering the use of public IP space. As the network in question is strictly closed I don't anticipate any problems with this as the addresses would be unambiguous within our environment. I'm curious if anyone else is doing this. I'd be very interested in corresponding off-list with anyone who's in a similar position.
Technically, yes you can use non-RFC1918 space in this way, but is definitely not a good idea. The needs of the people using the network could change at some point in the future, where some degree of Internet connectivity is needed, at which point your support headaches would multiply if you used non-1918 space in this manner.
Is there a reason that other 1918 address ranges (172.16/12, 192.168/16) could not be used? jms
Current thread:
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space, (continued)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Matthew Palmer (Feb 03)
- RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Skeeve Stevens (Feb 03)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Ricky Beam (Feb 04)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Måns Nilsson (Feb 04)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Randy Bush (Feb 04)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space James R. Cutler (Feb 04)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Ricky Beam (Feb 04)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Owen DeLong (Feb 03)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Nathan Ward (Feb 02)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Adrian Chadd (Feb 02)
- Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Seth Mattinen (Feb 02)
- RE: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Michael Hallgren (Feb 02)