nanog mailing list archives
Re: 10.0.0
From: "Philip J. Nesser II" <pjnesser () martigny ai mit edu>
Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 02:42:16 -0400 (EDT)
Dave O'Shea supposedly said:
I've noted several providers, including a couple of better-known ones, using RFC1597 addresses internally. While not a Really Optimal Solution, it does work, and if you find yourself with only a couple of class C's to work with.. I'd probably rather preserve them for my customers, and go with whatever I had to internally, as long as packets still got from A to B.
I would like to contidict your statement of "not a Really Optimal Solution" and state that it is a really good solution. The value of a uniques address is its routability. For purely transit links what does it matter? Using an RFC 1918 net for your internal network is a good move for providers to provide transit. It provides great flexibilty in your numbering options and as long as you don't leak your IGRP routes your AS the only thing it effects is traceroutes.
Much more interesting is when you have to connect to several different customers, many of whom have chosen 10/8, 172.16/16, or 192.168.1/24 as their core network addresses.
It shouldn't make a bit of difference since the routes should not be visable outside the individual AS. ---> Phil - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- 10.0.0 Janet Pippin (May 30)
- Re: 10.0.0 Ehud Gavron (May 30)
- Re: 10.0.0 Jared Mauch (May 30)
- Re: 10.0.0 Paul Ferguson (May 31)
- Re: 10.0.0 Bil Herd (May 31)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: 10.0.0 Dave O'Shea (May 30)
- Re: 10.0.0 Philip J. Nesser II (May 30)
- Re: 10.0.0 Alec H. Peterson (May 31)
- Re: 10.0.0 John Hawkinson (May 31)
- Re: 10.0.0 Philip J. Nesser II (May 30)
- Re: 10.0.0 Danny McPherson (May 31)
- Re: 10.0.0 Daniel Senie (May 31)
- Re: 10.0.0 Dave O'Shea (May 31)
- Re: 10.0.0 Tony Li (May 31)
- Re: 10.0.0 Ehud Gavron (May 30)