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
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
If you are using a completely disconnected *LAB* network then why don't
you use 'real' addresses and do the test like that simulating the
environment just as in 'the real world' (matrix onion layer 666
The only reason you should be worried about IANA is if you
where connecting this network to the internet or to other nets.
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? IANA IPv4 Address Space Registry
It means (like what has happened recently with 69/8 and others) that
they're not in use YET. Eventually, they will go from Reserved to RIR
assigned and you will have reachability issues if your lab is ever
connected to the internet.
Anyone else ever use IANA reserved address spacing for
lab networks? Is there anything special I need to know?
There's an awful lot of RFC 1918 space. How about using some of it?
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.
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 addressing is not an option, what can you do? (I
know it's a stretch, but I think it asks specifically what Brennan wants
to know and what I'm curious about now)
IPV6 would seem to be the best answer overall since it has already been
determined the solution for limited addressing, but there is still
equipment/software and such that does not support it.
Brennan, is a mix of IPV6 and IPV4 private addressing an option for you? I
do have to agree wholeheartedly that using address space not assigned to
you is unprofessional, and will cause someone headaches later even if it
is not you.
You request the number if IP addresses you actually need from IANA (or the
relevant registry). See RFC2050, which says:
In order for the Internet to scale using existing technologies, use
of regional registry services should be limited to the assignment of
IP addresses for organizations meeting one or more of the following
conditions:
a) the organization has no intention of connecting to
the Internet-either now or in the future-but it still
requires a globally unique IP address. The organization
should consider using reserved addresses from RFC1918.
If it is determined this is not possible, they can be
issued unique (if not Internet routable) IP addresses.
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. I came across the numbering for
this in another lookup I was doing and it seemed relevant:
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)
What "real world" scenario would use more than almost 17.9 million hosts?
That doesn't count NAT'ing within private addressing if the project is
large enough and primarily using outbound traffic.
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?)
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?)
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 observed as line rate) when subjected to different length prefixes.
I came across the numbering for