On Jan 24, 2007, at 4:58 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
The problem is that you can't be sure that if you use RFC1918 today
you
won't be bitten by it's non-uniqueness property in the future. When
you're asked to diagnose a fault with a device with the IP address
192.168.1.1, and you've got an unknown number of candidate devices
using that address, you really start to see the value in having world
wide unique, but not necessarily publically visible addressing.
That's what I meant by the 'as long as one is sure one isn't buying
trouble down the road' part. Having encountered problems with
overlapping address space many times in the past, I'm quite aware of
the pain, thanks.
;>
RFC1918 was created for a reason, and it is used (and misused, we all
understand that) today by many network operators for a reason. It is
up to the architects and operators of networks to determine whether
or not they should make use of globally-unique addresses or RFC1918
addresses on a case-by-case basis; making use of RFC1918 addressing
is not an inherently stupid course of action, its appropriateness in
any given situation is entirely subjective.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> // 408.527.6376 voice
Technology is legislation.
-- Karl Schroeder