Owen DeLong wrote:
You are wrong....
Quoting from RFC 1597 (a precursor which was obsoleted by RFC 1918):
Ok, I was wrong. RFC1597 is dated 1994 and I thought the earliest
references were 1995/96. The point I was trying to make is that RFC1918
and precursors were not motivated solely by address space limits. They
were also motivated by the increasingly common practice of numbering
internal networks with unassigned public address space. Random assignments
of IP blocks had begun years before RFC1597 and were occurring in
increasing numbers.
"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it" or so the saying goes.
Force consumers internal networks to be publicly routable and you will see
history repeat itself.
Roger Marquis
Roger Marquis wrote:
references were 1995/96. The point I was trying to make is that RFC1918
and precursors were not motivated solely by address space limits. They
were also motivated by the increasingly common practice of numbering
internal networks with unassigned public address space. Random assignments
of IP blocks had begun years before RFC1597 and were occurring in
increasing numbers.
It is a good thing then, that IPv6 has RFC4193 addressing, then. Which I believe most organization will like a LOT better due to the decreased chance of conflict during private network interconnects.
Of course, there are several aspects to using local addressing without NAT. There is nothing to say you can't use a proxy server. You can have local addressing and global addressing on the same systems if you so choose. Then again, who's taking bets on the fact that vendors will not use NAT anyways.
Jack