Thus spake "Keith Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > What's the problem with locally significant addresses? Having
thousands of
> > 10 networks will never present a problem unless those networks at
some point
> > would like to talk to each other.
>
> right. if net 10 networks stay completely isolated from one another,
> then there's no problem. the problem only exists when people want to
> tie those networks together. but it's inevitable that the vast
majority
> of private networks *will* want to communicate with the public
Internet
> in ways that NAT does not facilitate.
In my experience, the addressing problem hasn't even been with people
trying to communicate across the Internet... It's private corporate
connections.
Imagine there are n companies using 10/8. Now, each of these n
companies wants to talk (privately) with the other n-1 companies. Since
each company uses the same addresses, they must put a pair of NAT
devices facing each other at each boundary, resulting in 2n(n-1) NATs
(more for redundancy). Also, since each company must see non-10/8
addresses for each of its n-1 peers, you will need locally-unique blocks
of address space for each NAT-NAT link.
Now, this address space can be private, requiring extensive coordination
between all n companies on who can use what where, or it can be public,
requiring n(n-1) blocks of space from ARIN/RIPE/APNIC.
When n was small, NAT was feasible. At today's value for n, it is
conceivable that we may consume fewer address blocks without NAT.
> Keith
S
| | Stephen Sprunk, K5SSS, CCIE #3723
:|: :|: Network Design Consultant, GSOLE
:|||: :|||: New office: RCDN2 in Richardson, TX
.:|||||||:..:|||||||:. Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
