nanog mailing list archives
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
From: Jason LeBlanc <jml () packetpimp org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 08:39:50 -0500
I hear you on the double, triple nat nightmare, I'm there myself. I'm working on rolling out VRFs to solve that problem, still testing. The nat complexities and bugs (nat translations losing their mind and killing connectivity for important apps) are just too much for some of our customers, users, etc to deal with. Some days it kills me that v6 is still not really viable, I keep asking providers where they're at with it. Their most common complaint is that the operating systems don't support it yet. They mention primarily Windows since that is what is most implemented, not in the colo world but what the users have. I suggested they offer a service that somehow translates (heh, shifting the pain to them) v4 to v6 for their customers to move it along.
Roland Dobbins wrote:
On Jan 24, 2007, at 4:58 AM, Mark Smith wrote:The problem is that you can't be sure that if you use RFC1918 today you won't be bitten by it's non-uniqueness property in the future. When you're asked to diagnose a fault with a device with the IP address 192.168.1.1, and you've got an unknown number of candidate devices using that address, you really start to see the value in having world wide unique, but not necessarily publically visible addressing.That's what I meant by the 'as long as one is sure one isn't buying trouble down the road' part. Having encountered problems with overlapping address space many times in the past, I'm quite aware of the pain, thanks.;>RFC1918 was created for a reason, and it is used (and misused, we all understand that) today by many network operators for a reason. It is up to the architects and operators of networks to determine whether or not they should make use of globally-unique addresses or RFC1918 addresses on a case-by-case basis; making use of RFC1918 addressing is not an inherently stupid course of action, its appropriateness in any given situation is entirely subjective.----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins () cisco com> // 408.527.6376 voice Technology is legislation. -- Karl Schroeder
Current thread:
- Re: Google wants to be your Internet, (continued)
- Re: Google wants to be your Internet Chris L. Morrow (Jan 23)
- Re: Google wants to be your Internet Sean Donelan (Jan 23)
- Re: Google wants to be your Internet Adrian Chadd (Jan 23)
- Re: Google wants to be your Internet Roland Dobbins (Jan 23)
- Re: Google wants to be your Internet Roland Dobbins (Jan 20)
- Re: Google wants to be your Internet Roland Dobbins (Jan 24)
- Re: Google wants to be your Internet Mark Smith (Jan 24)
- Re: Google wants to be your Internet Roland Dobbins (Jan 24)
- Re: Google wants to be your Internet Jason LeBlanc (Jan 24)
- RE: Google wants to be your Internet Jamie Bowden (Jan 24)
- Re: Google wants to be your Internet Joe Abley (Jan 24)
- Re: Google wants to be your Internet Roland Dobbins (Jan 24)
- Re: Google wants to be your Internet Joseph S D Yao (Jan 29)
- Re: Google wants to be your Internet Henning Brauer (Jan 29)
- Re: Google wants to be your Internet Brandon Galbraith (Jan 29)
- Re: Google wants to be your Internet Joe Abley (Jan 29)
- RE: Google wants to be your Internet Mark D. Kaye (Jan 30)
- Re: Google wants to be your Internet Joseph S D Yao (Jan 31)