On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 6:54 PM, David Barak <thegameiam@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: R. Benjamin Kessler <Ben.Kessler@zenetra.com>
From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herbert@gmail.com]
"Let's just grab 2/8, it's not routed on the Internet..."
+1
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) bogon space.
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.
If you could really proxy everything, you'd be able to use 10/8 everywhere and never hit problems, even if two private peers overlap in usage within 10/8. I can assure you that the "proxy everything" statement breaks down with every enterprise-to-enterprise interconnection project I've run into. There are some protocols that are just not meant to do that. -- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com