nanog mailing list archives
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 10:38:08 -0800
On Feb 5, 2009, at 8:24 AM, Roger Marquis wrote:
* NAT disadvantage #3: RFC1918 was created because people were afraid ofrunning out of addresses. (in 1992?)Yes. One of my colleague, who participated in development of RFC 1918 confirmed it.Your colleague was wrong. I was one of several engineers who handed out "private" addresses back before RFC1918 even though we could get "public"
You are wrong.... Quoting from RFC 1597 (a precursor which was obsoleted by RFC 1918): 2. Motivation With the proliferation of TCP/IP technology worldwide, including outside the Internet itself, an increasing number of non-connected enterprises use this technology and its addressing capabilities for sole intra-enterprise communications, without any intention to ever directly connect to other enterprises or the Internet itself. The current practice is to assign globally unique addresses to allhosts that use TCP/IP. There is a growing concern that the finite IP
address space might become exhausted. Therefore, the guidelines for assigning IP address space have been tightened in recent years [1]. These rules are often more conservative than enterprises would like, in order to implement and operate their networks.Note the specific reference in the second paragraph to address space exhaustion.
Owen
Current thread:
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space, (continued)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Christopher Morrow (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Joe Abley (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Jack Bates (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Owen DeLong (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Roger Marquis (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Owen DeLong (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Stephen Sprunk (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Owen DeLong (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Matthew Moyle-Croft (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Ricky Beam (Feb 09)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Frank Bulk - iName.com (Feb 09)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space TJ (Feb 10)