nanog mailing list archives
Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters
From: George Herbert <george.herbert () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 20:21:02 -0800
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 6:54 PM, David Barak <thegameiam () yahoo com> wrote:
From: R. Benjamin Kessler <Ben.Kessler () zenetra com>From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herbert () gmail com]"Let's just grab 2/8, it's not routed on the Internet..."+1I 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.I wonder what they're doing now...<fireproof underwear = on> If we make the assumption that the hosts which were numbered in the space formerly known as bogon are typical enterprise hosts, it wouldn't be surprising if they were just fine: they probably don't *want* to have end-to-end connectivity, and are perfectly happy with the proxy-everything approach. If you're going to NAT everything anyway, then the damage done by having 2/8 on both sides of the NAT isn't any worse than having 10/8 on both sides of the NAT. If it turns out that they start running across the hosts in 2/8 as customers, those can get NATted into some third block, with probably a lot less effort and confusion than trying to sort out the chunks of overlapping 10/8s.
If you could really proxy everything, you'd be able to use 10/8 everywhere and never hit problems, even if two private peers overlap in usage within 10/8. I can assure you that the "proxy everything" statement breaks down with every enterprise-to-enterprise interconnection project I've run into. There are some protocols that are just not meant to do that. -- -george william herbert george.herbert () gmail com
Current thread:
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters, (continued)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters gb10hkzo-nanog (Feb 08)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Jared Mauch (Feb 08)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Sam Stickland (Feb 08)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Matthew Kaufman (Feb 08)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Mark Andrews (Feb 08)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters George Herbert (Feb 08)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 08)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters George Herbert (Feb 08)
- RE: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters R. Benjamin Kessler (Feb 08)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters David Barak (Feb 08)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters George Herbert (Feb 08)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Sam Stickland (Feb 09)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Joel Jaeggli (Feb 09)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Owen DeLong (Feb 09)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters gb10hkzo-nanog (Feb 08)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Lynda (Feb 08)
- Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters Benson Schliesser (Feb 08)