Others have pointed out that I should stick to RFC 1918 address space. But again, this is a lab network and to use the words of another, one of the things I want to do is make it much easier to "parse visually" my route tables. Think of it as a "metric system" type of numbering plan. The 1 and 100 nets would not be advertised via BGP obviously...not a hijack situation at all. If I take into account the possibility that this lab will have later requirements to connect to the internet, all I have to do is have a NAT plan in place...one that even takes into account that the 1 and 100 nets could become available some day, correct? Thanks to those who have responded so far. -----Original Message----- From: bmanning@karoshi.com [mailto:bmanning@karoshi.com] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 8:08 AM To: Murphy, Brennan Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: IANA reserved Address Space networks 1 and 100 are reserved for future delegation. network 10 is delegated for private networks, such as your lab. if you use networks 1 and 100, you are hijacking these numbers. that said, as long as your lab is never going to connect to the Internet, you may want to consider using the following prefixes: 4.0.0.0/8 38.0.0.0/8 127.0.0.0/8 192.0.0.0/8
I'm tasked with coming up with an IP plan for an very large lab network. I want to maximize route table manageability and router/firewall log readability. I was thinking of building this lab with the following address space:
1.0.0.0 /8 10.0.0.0 /8 100.0.0.0 /8
I need 3 distinct zones which is why I wanted to separate them out. In
any case, I was wondering about the status of the 1 /8 and the 100 /8 networks. What does it mean that they are IANA reserved? Reserved for what? http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
Anyone else ever use IANA reserved address spacing for lab networks? Is there anything special I need to know? I'm under the impression that as long as I stay away from special use address space, I've got no worries. http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3330.txt
Thanks, BM
On Fri, 30 May 2003 05:49:28 PDT, Brennan_Murphy@NAI.com said:
one of the things I want to do is make it much easier to "parse visually" my route tables.
Might want to use networks 4/8, 16/8, and 64/8 - they stand out nicely when looking at net numbers in hex or binary. ;)
Brennan, If you want your routes to be human parse'able, I recommend running your lab in full IPv6 mode. That way you take Valdis's recommendation to a whole new level (and base number system). Plus... Whats the point of having a lab that only uses 1982/1983 addressing techniques (1/8, 10/8, 100/8 are classfull addresses). Labs are meant to push the limits of todays technology and experiment with future concepts. IPv6 matches that criteria. Martin --- At 10:07 AM 5/30/2003 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2003 05:49:28 PDT, Brennan_Murphy@NAI.com said:
one of the things I want to do is make it much easier to "parse visually" my route tables.
Might want to use networks 4/8, 16/8, and 64/8 - they stand out nicely when looking at net numbers in hex or binary. ;)
If your net 1 and your net 100 talk to each other in your lab, what sort of NAT plan would allow your net 1 to distinguish between your net 100 and the real net 100? Really... There are three different zones of RFC-1918 space, so your routing tables should still be pretty easy to visually parse. Owen --On Friday, May 30, 2003 5:49 AM -0700 Brennan_Murphy@nai.com wrote:
Others have pointed out that I should stick to RFC 1918 address space. But again, this is a lab network and to use the words of another, one of the things I want to do is make it much easier to "parse visually" my route tables. Think of it as a "metric system" type of numbering plan. The 1 and 100 nets would not be advertised via BGP obviously...not a hijack situation at all.
If I take into account the possibility that this lab will have later requirements to connect to the internet, all I have to do is have a NAT plan in place...one that even takes into account that the 1 and 100 nets could become available some day, correct?
Thanks to those who have responded so far.
-----Original Message----- From: bmanning@karoshi.com [mailto:bmanning@karoshi.com] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 8:08 AM To: Murphy, Brennan Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: IANA reserved Address Space
networks 1 and 100 are reserved for future delegation. network 10 is delegated for private networks, such as your lab.
if you use networks 1 and 100, you are hijacking these numbers.
that said, as long as your lab is never going to connect to the Internet, you may want to consider using the following prefixes:
4.0.0.0/8 38.0.0.0/8 127.0.0.0/8 192.0.0.0/8
I'm tasked with coming up with an IP plan for an very large lab network. I want to maximize route table manageability and router/firewall log readability. I was thinking of building this lab with the following address space:
1.0.0.0 /8 10.0.0.0 /8 100.0.0.0 /8
I need 3 distinct zones which is why I wanted to separate them out. In
any case, I was wondering about the status of the 1 /8 and the 100 /8 networks. What does it mean that they are IANA reserved? Reserved for what? http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
Anyone else ever use IANA reserved address spacing for lab networks? Is there anything special I need to know? I'm under the impression that as long as I stay away from special use address space, I've got no worries. http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3330.txt
Thanks, BM
participants (4)
-
Brennan_Murphy＠NAI.com -
Martin J. Levy -
Owen DeLong -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu