nanog mailing list archives
Re: technical contact at ATT Wireless
From: Jared Mauch <jared () puck nether net>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 23:20:46 -0400
On Jun 28, 2012, at 10:35 PM, Joel Maslak <jmaslak () antelope net> wrote:
Which is why enterprises generally shouldn't use RFC1918 IPs for servers when clients are located on networks not controlled by the same entity. Servers that serve multiple administration domains (such as VPN users on AT&T - or on some random home Linksys box) probably shouldn't be addressed using addresses that conceivably could be used at the other end. But I'm probably fighting a losing battle saying that...
I've worked at places that do some combination of all public, all private and a mix.. Usually the places that work best have all public as they avoid mtu and other issues that arise. I expect the enterprise world to start coming around in the years to come to understand how they have damaged networking for the companies. - Jared
Current thread:
- technical contact at ATT Wireless Mike Devlin (Jun 28)
- Re: technical contact at ATT Wireless PC (Jun 28)
- Re: technical contact at ATT Wireless Christopher Morrow (Jun 28)
- Re: technical contact at ATT Wireless PC (Jun 28)
- Re: technical contact at ATT Wireless Christopher Morrow (Jun 28)
- Re: technical contact at ATT Wireless Jonathan Lassoff (Jun 28)
- Re: technical contact at ATT Wireless Christopher Morrow (Jun 28)
- Re: technical contact at ATT Wireless PC (Jun 28)
- Re: technical contact at ATT Wireless Joel Maslak (Jun 28)
- Re: technical contact at ATT Wireless Cameron Byrne (Jun 28)
- Re: technical contact at ATT Wireless Jared Mauch (Jun 28)
- Re: technical contact at ATT Wireless Tyler Haske (Jun 29)
- Re: technical contact at ATT Wireless Jared Mauch (Jun 29)
- Re: technical contact at ATT Wireless Tyler Haske (Jun 29)
- Re: technical contact at ATT Wireless Owen DeLong (Jun 29)