nanog mailing list archives
Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space
From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6 () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 21:04:21 -0700
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 8:45 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu> wrote:
On Tue, 24 May 2011 22:22:20 CDT, Jeremy said:As long as necessary precautions are taken (route filters, tunnels, VRF's) shouldn't this be technically feasible without any negative ramifications?The types of network designers who are able to cover *every single* little detail needed to make this sort of thing work are rarely the types of network designers that would snarf up somebody else's prefix to use for this sort of thing, and vice versa.
I think you underestimate how truly common this practice is in private corners of large networks. I did not say good, but i did say common. And, it will become increasingly common. Look down on it as much as you want, but it is the reality. Squatting on (currently) unrouted space is the new NAT. CB CB
Current thread:
- Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space, (continued)
- Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space Rubens Kuhl (May 24)
- Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space Owen DeLong (May 24)
- Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space Valdis . Kletnieks (May 24)
- Godwin was here ... was Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 Edward Lewis (May 24)
- Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space Jimmy Hess (May 24)
- Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space Jay Ashworth (May 24)
- Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space Steven Bellovin (May 24)
- Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space Jeremy (May 24)
- Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space Valdis . Kletnieks (May 24)
- Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space Cameron Byrne (May 24)