nanog mailing list archives
RE: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918"
From: "TJ" <trejrco () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 15:24:14 -0400
But ... that's part of why RFC1918 is used, so they have this fairly large address range to play with. And remember, what one person calls inefficiency, another calls flexibility. Either (or neither) may be right! Oh, and I don't think we can say RFC1918 doesn't work today - obviously it does, just possibly inducing lots of head-aches. And yes, same ideas occur - just with larger numbers :) - in v6. To keep the analogy complete, reference ULAs ... with a (more stringent?) random component. (I put a question mark on that just because you can break the spec and configure non-random ones <grumble>) /TJ
-----Original Message----- From: Darden, Patrick S. [mailto:darden () armc org] Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:19 PM To: Marshall Eubanks; Joel Jaeggli Cc: nanog () nanog org Subject: RE: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918" Actually, rereading this, I agree. My experience is large companies take
it
all, using huge swathes inefficiently, instead of doing it right. In my previous post I was answering the question I thought you were asking, not your real question. I agree with you both. I think that RFC1918 Could work, if companies used it correctly.... Again, though, I have only run into one company that used it correctly. IPV6, you are our only hope! (obiwan kenobi, you are our only hope!) --p Joel saidHow 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?Marshall said In my experience, effectively all of it.
Current thread:
- RE: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918", (continued)
- RE: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918" Blake Pfankuch (Aug 06)
- Re: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918" Matthew Kaufman (Aug 06)
- Re: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918" Randy Bush (Aug 06)
- Re: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918" Owen DeLong (Aug 06)
- Re: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918" Leo Vegoda (Aug 06)
- Re: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918" Joel Jaeggli (Aug 06)
- 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" Marshall Eubanks (Aug 06)
- RE: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918" Darden, Patrick S. (Aug 06)
- RE: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918" TJ (Aug 06)
- 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" 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)