On 12/4/11 8:22 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
So you tell me how safe picking a specific RFC 1918 address space is. There are ~100,000
enterprises with over 100 employees just in the US, and ~20,000 with over 500 employees
in the US. Obviously my company is a tech company so it's probably not
"normal", but still it seems obvious enterprises use random 10.x.x.x and
172.16/12.
AFAICT, it *isn't* safe to use these addresses if and only if these
enterprises *also* use equipment that can't deal with 1918 addresses on
their external interface. For example, your machine taking a
10.2xx.xxx.xxx address isn't a problem in and of itself because the NAT
in front of you is translating. The issue only arises if the Carrier
Grade NAT in front of you is on the other side of equipment that *can't*
handle that portion of address space on the outside.
Now, I don't know if that means it *is* safe. I don't know how many
enterprises talk to CGNs and wouldn't be able to deal with a particular
block of 1918 addresses on the outside. That's the question I'd really
like an answer to but haven't seen yet.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf