[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters
>From: R. Benjamin Kessler <Ben.Kessler at zenetra.com>
>>From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herbert at gmail.com]
>>"Let's just grab 2/8, it's not routed on the Internet..."
>I was consulting for a financial services firm in the late '90s that was
>acquired by a large east-coast bank; the bank's brilliant scheme >was to
>renumber all new acquisitions *out* of RFC1918 space and into (at the time)
>If I recall, some of the arguments were "they were too big to fit into RFC1918
>space" and by having all of their divisions in non->RFC1918 space it would make
>it easier for them to acquire new companies who used RFC1918 space internally.
>I wonder what they're doing now...
<fireproof underwear = on>
If we make the assumption that the hosts which were numbered in the space
formerly known as bogon are typical enterprise hosts, it wouldn't be surprising
if they were just?fine: they probably don't *want* to have end-to-end
connectivity, and are perfectly happy with the proxy-everything approach.
If you're going to NAT everything anyway, then the damage done by having 2/8 on
both sides of the NAT isn't any worse than having 10/8 on both sides of the
NAT.? If it turns out that they start running across the hosts in 2/8 as
customers, those can get NATted into some third block, with probably a lot less
effort and confusion than trying to sort out the chunks of overlapping 10/8s.
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: