On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
It seems that there are now organizations who want/need more private
address space than is available as per RFC 1918. Using class E space
for this would make a lot of sense as this allows for a lot of private
space without sacrificing usable unicast space.
Can you elaborate? I used to work for Hitachi, which is/was then the 7th
largest company in the world. I can think of very few organizations that
need more than 1 /8 and 17 /16's of unique, non-public space.
Allowing a non-global address space as a subset of the global space means
that one (or many) can reach the public network through a default route
that leads to a NAT. But if you have such a large network that it has
something greater than 20 million hosts that must each have direct access
to any of the rest, and you can't NAT internally, then you probably have
reached a point where you will need a more sophisticated mechanism than
NAT to reach the public internet.
Underlying this is the question of whether such a large network really
needs to simultanously reach the public network. If it doesn't, then there
is no reason to limit oneself to the RFC 1918 space.
I might also suggest that such a heavy address user migrate to IPv6
internally as IPv6 has similar problems and it is developing means to deal
with them.
--Dean
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf