On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 04:40:20PM +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Tony Tauber wrote:
The registries (including IANA as their root) should provide just that, a place to register the use of number resources to avoid collisions. I'm thinking that "private" number spaces should probably be used advisedly if not deprecated outright.
RIR's are taking heat (or some finger pointing atleast) for allocations that don't appear in the public route table. There are many reasons why
i rant, yet again.
doh!
what is this "the" public routing table? where does one get it? in my 25 years of networking I have NEVER seen it. i am convinced that it is a fictional as the "public" Internet. or the "DFZ" ... they do not exist, except in the fevered imaginations of marketing droids... and the virus is more virulent than the H5N1 strain. Note that it affects normally sane engineers who KNOW better.
'public routing table' == Internet nothing more, nothing less. this is distinct from SIPRnet and some portions of NIPRnet, or other 'private' networks out there.
back in the SRInic days, there was the "connected" and "unconnected" databases. ... to mark prefixes that were connected to the ARPAnet and those that were in "private" networks, like CSnet, NSFnet, and enterprise networks. Tony is right in this respect, RFC1918 space is a feeble attempt to get around/past the lack of address space that became apparent in IPv4 ... with IPv6, there is no real reason to try and recreate private space (leaving aside renumbering)
I don't believe there is a 'rfc1918' in v6 (yet), I agree that it doesn't seem relevant, damaging perhaps though :)
IMHO, assigning globally unique prefixes to those who utilize IP protocols, regardsless of whom else they choose to "see" via routing is the right course. every other attempt to split the assignements into "us" vs. "them" has had less than satisfactory results.
agreed