[ppml] public addresses for private networks

[Ron da Silva]

On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 01:14:08PM -0400, Lee Howard wrote:
> You make a good point that I have also encountered. . . .
> 
> Let's say I set up an internet to interconnect all of the baked-goods
> industry.  Some of those Hostess stores may also have Internet 
> connections.  If one router at a bakery has a connection to the
> Baked Goods Network and a connection to the Internet, the addresses
> between BGN and the Internet must not conflict.
> 
> We can't use RFC1918 space, because there are millions of bakeries
> on the BGN and we've used up all of that space.  Or because Hostess
> and Little Debbie both refused to renumber from their space, so we've
> already NATed them (I find this justification debatable).
> 
> One proposal I've seen at the IETF is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-guichard-pe-ce-addr-03.txt
> This suggests an additional network reservation of a /8 for numbering
> private provider networks.  The idea as I understand it is for each
> organization to use RFC1918 space internally, but the interconnections
> would be numbered from this new space.
> 
> I am agnostic on this draft, I merely point out its existence.

A double NAT between the RFC1918 domains?
-ron