[ppml] Suggestion for ARIN to deligate smaller IP blocks
JOHN at egh.com
Thu Jun 7 19:19:13 EDT 2007
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > The magic words, "private network", appeared in the next paragraph
> > you snipped, don't remember if I made it clear I was talking about
> > private internets, not intranets.
> what's a "private" internet?
I mean an internet (a network of networks) between different
organizations, but not (directly) accessible to the Internet.
Connections could be via private lines, VPN tunnels over the
public Internet, dialup, or whatever.
An "intranet" is a network within an organization, which doesn't
necessarily face the same problems.
Much has been made of the definition of "the Internet" as the largest
set of host defined by the relation "reachable by each other" (as I
understand it) in some recent posts. There are many other internets,
networks encompassing cooperating entities, which contain hosts that
are not reachable from the Internet at large but are reachable by each
other, and which have some hosts that are part of "the Internet." They
need non-colliding addresses. RFC1918 might work fine, if a single person
or group were managing address assignments (and the private internet were
small enough), but I'm talking about intERnets, not intRAnets, that is,
these networks belong to and are managed by different people, groups,
companies, or organizations, so RFC1918 addresses are very likely to
collide. Assigning unique addresses to all the involved organizations
would prevent the collisions. I realize that given the pending crunch
in ipv4 addresses, it may not be possible/practical to assign even /24's
to all organizations who might need them, but there is *no excuse* for
not allowing for this in ipv6. Whether it is ULA-C or PI is immaterial.
> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> (PPML at arin.net).
> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
More information about the ARIN-PPML