nanog mailing list archives
Re: IP backbone numbering/naming
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve () telecomplete co uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 23:52:23 +0000 (GMT)
Very old thread! Private hosts can communicate with all other hosts inside the enterprise, both public and private. However, they cannot have IP connectivity to any host outside of the enterprise. All other hosts will be public and will use globally unique address space assigned by an Internet Registry. Then you have the policy that its best to filter any rfc1918 packets ingress which then leads on to broken path mtu, missing traceroute hops... etc.. for the tiny number of addresses you need on p2p why does your boss care. Steve On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Steve Rude wrote:
Hi All, I am trying to collect information about using RFC 1918 space on an ISP backbone. I have read the RFC several times, and I don't see where it says that you cannot use 10/8 space to number your backbone links (/30s). I know this is an old thread that has been rehashed several times, but can anyone please send me links or information that I can use to convince my boss that we should use our arin alloc'd space on our backbone instead of using private space. Also if anyone has opinions on naming conventions for backbone such as why to or why not to even have dns resolution for your backbone and some conventions please let me know. TIA! -- Steve Rude steve () rudedogg com
Current thread:
- IP backbone numbering/naming Steve Rude (Nov 15)
- Re: IP backbone numbering/naming Stephen J. Wilcox (Nov 15)
- Re: IP backbone numbering/naming Brian (Nov 15)
- Re: IP backbone numbering/naming Owen DeLong (Nov 15)
- Re: IP backbone numbering/naming haesu (Nov 15)
- Re: IP backbone numbering/naming Mike Lewinski (Nov 15)
- Re: IP backbone numbering/naming Joe Provo (Nov 16)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: IP backbone numbering/naming Jahowering (Nov 16)
- Re: IP backbone numbering/naming Mike Lewinski (Nov 16)
- Re: IP backbone numbering/naming Stephen J. Wilcox (Nov 15)