On Sat, 31 May 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The only difference between routed and unrouted (note the difference
> between that and routable) is consensus. There is nothing inherent in the bits
> which prevents RFC1918 from being routed globally. There is no requirement
> to use RFC1918 for NA
> On Fri, 30 May 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> > > 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 sp
> Since all of the replies have been pretty close to the same (Use RFC1918
> ...etc), I'd like to rephrase it to answer a curiosity of mine.
The answers seemed correct, rephrasing wont change current systems or policies
to suit you!
> RFC1918 is a set number of IP addresses. If you are working
On Fri, 30 May 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> As a related question I guess I'd ask what sort of simulation requires
> more than 16.7 million discreet ipv4 adresses (1/256 of the whole) in
> order too simulate a reasonable subset of the whole ipv4 internet.
>
Many products perform differently (though both performance levels might
be ob
> RFC1884 sets aside fec0::/10 for IPV6 Private addressing. That's enough to
> fit all of IPV4 addressing inside of the private addressing alone. (Anyone
> have a total number of unique hosts on that one?)
>
2^(128-10)
332306998946228968225951765070086144
Pete
On Sat, 31 May 2003 00:54:07 EDT, Gerald said:
> 10.0.0.0/8 16,777,214 unique hosts maximum
> 192.168.0.0/16 65,534 unique hosts maximum
> 172.16.0.0/12 1,048,574 unique hosts maximum
> Total: 17,891,322 unique addresses (before further subnetting)
However, see RFC3194.
pgp0.pgp
Descr
On Fri, 30 May 2003, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> As a related question I guess I'd ask what sort of simulation requires
> more than 16.7 million discreet ipv4 adresses (1/256 of the whole) in
> order too simulate a reasonable subset of the whole ipv4 internet.
I don't have an answer for that one. :-)
On Fri, 30 May 2003, Gerald wrote:
>
> RFC1918 is a set number of IP addresses. If you are working on a private
> network lab that will be on the internet eventually or have parts on the
> internet and exceeds the total number of IPV4 addressing set aside in
> RFC1918, and IPV6 private addressin
>
> >
> > 1.0.0.0 /8
> > 10.0.0.0 /8
> > 100.0.0.0 /8
>
> I encourage my competitors to do this.
>
> or read another way, this is fairly stupid, but as log as
> this stupidity doesn't affect me, I don't care. However the
> person tasked with cleaning tha crap up behind you may not feel
> the sam
> On Fri, 30 May 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> RFC1918 is a set number of IP addresses. If you are working on a private
> network lab that will be on the internet eventually or have parts on the
> internet and exceeds the total number of IPV4 addressing set aside in
> RFC1918, and IPV6 private
On Fri, 30 May 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 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
>
> 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 encourage my comp
On Fri, 30 May 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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? R
>
> > Bill Manning wrote:
> > that said, as long as your lab is never going to
> > connect to the Internet, you may want to consider
> > using the following prefixes:
> > [..]
> > 127.0.0.0/8
>
> I would not use 127.0.0.0/8 for anything.
>
> Michel.
>
that would be you.
in
On Fri, 30 May 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 10.12.22.2? Wouldnt it be easier if your test results looked
> like this: 1.10.1.1, 10.10.1.1, 100.10.1.1, 1.1.1.1, 10.1.1.1,
> 100.1.1.1, etc?
Those aren't very human parsable in my eyes - too close to one another.
Why not use 10/8, 241/8 and, a
> > But not to be a pest but what are the odds
> > the IANA would ever allocate the 1 and 100
> > nets to someone?
>
> 99%
I can't imagine 100.0.0.0/8 remaining reserved - there's nothing
particularly special about it (100=0x64... a number which represented
in hex has digits which form a power o
> But not to be a pest but what are the odds
> the IANA would ever allocate the 1 and 100
> nets to someone?
99%
> If you're running tests do you want too see results such as
> 192.168.22.0, 172.16.89.22, 10.129.20.222, 10.12.22.2? Wouldnt it be
> easier if your test results looked like this: 1.10.1.1, 10.10.1.1,
> 100.10.1.1, 1.1.1.1, 10.1.1.1, 100.1.1.1, etc?
What's wrong with results that look like:
gt;
> ThanksI really appreciate everyone's feedback on this.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Murphy, Brennan
> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 9:21 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: IANA reserved Address Space
>
>
>
> OK, I see now t
On Fri, 30 May 2003 07:20:33 PDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> firewall rulesets and logs. If you're running tests do you want too
> see results such as 192.168.22.0, 172.16.89.22, 10.129.20.222,
> 10.12.22.2? Wouldnt it be easier if your test results looked
> like this: 1.10.1.1, 10.10.1.1, 100
, Brennan
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 goi
.1, 10.1.1.1,
100.1.1.1, etc?
ThanksI really appreciate everyone's feedback on this.
-Original Message-
From: Murphy, Brennan
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 9:21 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: IANA reserved Address Space
OK, I see now that down the road using
a 1
nt: Friday, May 30, 2003 8:49 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: IANA reserved Address Space
>
>
>
> 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
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
On Fri, 30 May 2003 05:49:28 PDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. ;)
pgp0.pgp
Descrip
From: Murphy, Brennan
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 8:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: IANA reserved Address Space
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 ma
t
the 1 and 100 nets could become available some
day, correct?
Thanks to those who have responded so far.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 8:08 AM
To: Murphy, Brennan
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IANA reserved Address Spa
> 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
s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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.
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
31 matches
Mail list logo
