North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: test Nets being routed?
>permits/denys what? (a retorical query) >the point being that there is no practical difference btween > > 184.108.40.206/24 >and 192.0.0.0/24 >or 220.127.116.11/24 >or 18.104.22.168/24 > >these prefixes (and delegation points) are valid or potentially valid >in the routing system whereas > > 192.0.2.0/24 >and 172.16.0.0/16 >and 192.168.0.0/24 >and 10.0.0.0/8 > >are not. > >--bill (off to re-read RFC 1519 and RFC 1918 just to make sure) Bill, You remind me of something I've been hunting for, which I think is relevant to a lot of operationally related educational examples. Are there prefixes that are likely to stay unassigned for the moderate to long term, other than the RFC1918 group? If I'm showing how to use a NAT with private address space on one side and registered space on the other, I'd like to use some "safe" prefixes on the public side that are NOT from RFC1918. Is there some block likely to stay with IANA? Or possibly some space assigned to the military and likely to stay in a secure network? I really feel for the people who have 22.214.171.124, 126.96.36.199, and the other prefixes used in Cisco educational material for many years! How many clueless people have picked those as their network numbers? Howard