On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 09:36:05AM -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > Darden, Patrick S. wrote: > >Most organizations that would be doing this would not randomly pick out > >subnets, if I understand you. They would randomly pick out a subnet, then > >they would sub-subnet that based on a scheme. I believe this is the > >intent of RFC 1918. Not to apply a random IP scheme, but to randomly pick > >a network from the appropriate sized Private Networking ranges, then apply > >a well thought out scheme to the section of IP addresses you chose. > > > >E.g. 10.150.x.y/16 as their network. X could be physical positioning, and > >Y could be purposive in nature. 10.150.0.0 as basement, 10.150.1.0 as > >first floor, 10.150.2.0 as second floor, etc. 1-20 as switches/routers, > >21-50 as servers and static workstations, 51-100 as printers, and 101--200 > >as DHCP scope for PCs, and 201-254 for remote login DHCP scope (vpn, > >dialup, etc.) > > > >Yes, I think a large private network would work this way. RFC 1918 wants > >it to work this way (imho).
I'm certain that wasn't the intent of 1918, from the "random" wording. > How much of 10/8 and 172.16/12 does an organization with ~80k employees, > on 5 continents, with hundreds of extranet connections to partners and > suppliers in addition to numerous aquistions and the occasional > subsidiary who also use 10/8 and 172.16/12 use? My network serves around 300 machines and employees, and uses 10.10/16, though very sparsely -- we do indeed subject one /24 per function. The *point* though, is that it's 10.*10*. Another client is using 10.55.storenumber with one /24 per store. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink [EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 Those who cast the vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything. -- (Josef Stalin)
