[ppml] public addresses for private networks
Ron da Silva
ron at aol.net
Thu Aug 21 15:47:11 EDT 2003
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:
> 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?
More information about the ARIN-PPML