[ppml] POC verification process
william at elan.net
william at elan.net
Wed Aug 13 19:46:36 EDT 2003
I meant 220.127.116.11/8 and 18.104.22.168/8 not /1 and /2. Sorry about mistype.
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 william at elan.net wrote:
> Overall this situation seems to indicate that we need additional ip blocks
> to be reserved as non-routabled ip space (that everybody would also knew
> about and would filter at the router level). I'd say /1 and /2 are good
> choices for it. The idea would be to specify that 10.x is to be used for
> LAN while /1 or /2 is said to be used for WAN (meaning global scale)
> private networks. In addition somebody can keep track of all these private
> "WANs" and registries involved (like we already have WIANA discussed before)
> so that different industries not start to have duplicate private network
> operators (or if they do so we at least knew who they are).
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Bill Van Emburg wrote:
> > What each of you who is following an argument similar to Ian's appears
> > to be missing is that it is a very real problem for enterprises that are
> > interconnected to avoid conflicting IP space, even within RFC 1918
> > addresses. In any case, they certainly don't globally coordinate their
> > use of the private IP space.
> > It is also not possible to simply grab a slice of public IP space, even
> > though the networks involved will not connect to the Internet. This is
> > because the enterprise would lose the ability to communicate with a
> > piece of the Internet, since they would be routing that slice of
> > addresses to a private network instead.
> > At a previous venture, we used a slice of public IP space assigned to us
> > for a network that would never see Internet-routed packets. The reason
> > for this was that we were interconnecting the private networks of
> > multiple customers. Each customer made use of the private IP space, and
> > their various uses of it conflicted with each other. All of them needed
> > to get packets to our back end network. The only way to ensure that a
> > conflict of addressing could be avoided was to use addresses that would
> > never be used on any customer's private network, and that would never
> > need to be routed from our own internal network to the Internet. The
> > only way to do *that* is with a slice of public IP space that we *know*
> > is never going to be used by anyone else -- one that we had assigned to us.
> > Do you understand the issue? I happen to think that the idea presented
> > here is an excellent one, as it handles one of the largest examples of
> > such a case. I would venture to guess that I was not the first one to
> > think of doing as we did in my example above....
More information about the ARIN-PPML