Joe Greco wrote:
On Feb 2, 2009, at 10:57 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Trey Darley <trey@kingfisherops.com> wrote:
Some colleagues and I are running into a bit of a problem. We've been using RFC 1918 Class A space but due to the way subnets have been allocated we are pondering the use of public IP space. As the network in question is strictly closed I don't anticipate any problems with this as the addresses would be unambiguous within our environment. I'm curious if anyone else is doing this.
I'd recommend against it, because even though the network is not connected to the Internet now you never know what the future holds. Even if it's never connected there are always things that seem to pop up and cause problems.
Also, if you're address allocation policy has been so badly managed that you've run out of space in 10.0.0.0/8 adding more IPs to the pool isn't going to help for very long.
It will if you manage it better.
Fortunately, there's a /12 and a /24 still left.
And a /16. (What's the /24?) And possibly some other space that is reserved-for-other-purposes.
A /12 is more space than 99.99% of the networks on the Internet need, so why wouldn't that suffice instead of using "real" space.
If you absolutely, positively *had* to allocate another /8, it'd probably be best to look through Class A space for networks that are not likely to ever appear on the Internet. ISTR a bunch of them are assigned to the US military, for example.
... JG
For which the unauthorized use of could be construed as a military attack if those pirated addresses ever appear on the open Internet from this ISP... No that's also a really bad idea. I find it really troublesome to believe that the subnetting on a site was so complex that it ate an entire /8. What I am betting is that for some reason that ISP wants its addressing to be totally flat and not replicated. Todd