nanog mailing list archives
Re: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918"
From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra () baylink com>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 14:08:10 -0400
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 09:36:05AM -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Darden, Patrick S. wrote:Most organizations that would be doing this would not randomly pick out subnets, if I understand you. They would randomly pick out a subnet, then they would sub-subnet that based on a scheme. I believe this is the intent of RFC 1918. Not to apply a random IP scheme, but to randomly pick a network from the appropriate sized Private Networking ranges, then apply a well thought out scheme to the section of IP addresses you chose. E.g. 10.150.x.y/16 as their network. X could be physical positioning, and Y could be purposive in nature. 10.150.0.0 as basement, 10.150.1.0 as first floor, 10.150.2.0 as second floor, etc. 1-20 as switches/routers, 21-50 as servers and static workstations, 51-100 as printers, and 101--200 as DHCP scope for PCs, and 201-254 for remote login DHCP scope (vpn, dialup, etc.) Yes, I think a large private network would work this way. RFC 1918 wants it to work this way (imho).
I'm certain that wasn't the intent of 1918, from the "random" wording.
How much of 10/8 and 172.16/12 does an organization with ~80k employees, on 5 continents, with hundreds of extranet connections to partners and suppliers in addition to numerous aquistions and the occasional subsidiary who also use 10/8 and 172.16/12 use?
My network serves around 300 machines and employees, and uses 10.10/16, though very sparsely -- we do indeed subject one /24 per function. The *point* though, is that it's 10.*10*. Another client is using 10.55.storenumber with one /24 per store. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra () baylink com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 Those who cast the vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything. -- (Josef Stalin)
Current thread:
- RE: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918", (continued)
- RE: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918" Darden, Patrick S. (Aug 06)
- Re: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918" Joel Jaeggli (Aug 06)
- RE: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918" TJ (Aug 06)
- RE: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918" michael.dillon (Aug 07)
- Re: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918" Patrick Darden (Aug 07)
- Re: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918" Jay R. Ashworth (Aug 07)
- Re: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918" Patrick Darden (Aug 07)
- Re: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918" Jay R. Ashworth (Aug 07)
- RE: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918" Darden, Patrick S. (Aug 07)
- RE: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918" TJ (Aug 12)
- Re: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918" Jay R. Ashworth (Aug 06)
- Re: Is it time to abandon bogon prefix filters? Patrick W. Gilmore (Aug 06)
- Re: Is it time to abandon bogon prefix filters? Randy Bush (Aug 06)
- Re: Is it time to abandon bogon prefix filters? Rob Thomas (Aug 06)
- Re: Is it time to abandon bogon prefix filters? Justin Shore (Aug 06)
- Re: Is it time to abandon bogon prefix filters? Rob Evans (Aug 06)
- Re: Is it time to abandon bogon prefix filters? Justin Shore (Aug 06)