On Dec 2, 2011, at 1:51 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote: > On 12/2/11 09:59 , Michael Richardson wrote: >> >>> Ted, your response does not address what I said at all. Not >>> one bit. Let's assume that *every* enterprise used every >>> last address of 172.16/12 (and, for that matter ever bit of >>> 1918 space). That's irrelevant and still does not address my >>> question. The question is whether these addresses are used >>> BY EQUIPMENT THAT CAN'T NAT TO IDENTICAL ADDRESSES ON THE >>> EXTERIOR INTERFACE. I am happy to accept an answer of, "Yes, >>> all 1918 address space is used by such equipment", but >>> nobody, including you, has actually said that. >> >> one reason enterprises use 172.16/12 for stuff is because that way, >> when their VPNs come up with people's residents, they do not immediately >> conflict with the LAN at the home/coffee shop, etc. > > realistically a sufficiently large enterprise uses all of rfc 1918 in > one form or another...
But (also realistically) a "sufficiently large enterprise" that uses all of RFC1918 is not going to be sitting behind a CGN... W > you're counting on to some extent the more > specific route associated with the subnet leaving the covering vpn route > unclobbered. sometimes however heroic work-arounds are required. > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
