North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
RE: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918"
Most organizations that would be doing this would not randomly pick out subnets, if I understand you. They would randomly pick out a subnet, then they would sub-subnet that based on a scheme. I believe this is the intent of RFC 1918. Not to apply a random IP scheme, but to randomly pick a network from the appropriate sized Private Networking ranges, then apply a well thought out scheme to the section of IP addresses you chose. E.g. 10.150.x.y/16 as their network. X could be physical positioning, and Y could be purposive in nature. 10.150.0.0 as basement, 10.150.1.0 as first floor, 10.150.2.0 as second floor, etc. 1-20 as switches/routers, 21-50 as servers and static workstations, 51-100 as printers, and 101--200 as DHCP scope for PCs, and 201-254 for remote login DHCP scope (vpn, dialup, etc.) Yes, I think a large private network would work this way. RFC 1918 wants it to work this way (imho). --p -----Original Message----- From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:joelja@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:21 AM To: Darden, Patrick S. Cc: nanog@xxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918" Darden, Patrick S. wrote: > *randomly* from the reserved pool of private addresses, when You're supposed to choose ula-v6 /48 prefixs randomly as well... Any bets on whether that routinely happens? While you're home can probably randomly allocate subnets out of a /8 or /12 for a while without collisions, nobody that's actually building a subnetting plan for a large private network is going to be able to get away with that in v4.