>Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 1:06 PM
>To: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: RE: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918"
>
>>Your point seemed to be that
>> it is not a large enough allocation of IPs for an international
>>enterprise of 80K souls. My r
Hi Jay,
Jay Ashworth:
> Sure. And he's not always right either; none of us are.
> But he gave cogent arguments to support his point, and you gave us
He gave good arguments. You, however, did not.
> None of which amounts to "wants to hurt people", which is what you
>accused him of.
I was out
On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 03:55:13PM -0400, Patrick Darden wrote:
> Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> >You really think Michael is malicious in his intent?
> >You've spent a whole lot of time paying now attention around here,
> >haven't you?
>
> I think Michael tends to get confrontational. As, apparently,
Hi Jay,
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
You really think Michael is malicious in his intent?
You've spent a whole lot of time paying now attention around here,
haven't you?
I think Michael tends to get confrontational. As, apparently, do you.
I'm on a lot of the same lists Michael is on. Have b
On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 01:47:02PM -0400, Patrick Darden wrote:
> I've always enjoyed your posts Michael. You are obviously an expert,
> with no patience for idiocy, and you always go for the throat and try to
> hurt the other person as much as you can. Your messages are always very
> entertai
I've always enjoyed your posts Michael. You are obviously an expert,
with no patience for idiocy, and you always go for the throat and try to
hurt the other person as much as you can. Your messages are always very
entertaining.
In this case, however, you are responding to a conversation that
>Your point seemed to be that
> it is not a large enough allocation of IPs for an
> international enterprise of 80K souls. My rebuttal is: 16.5
> million IPs isn't enough?
You don't seem to understand how IPv4 networks are designed
and how that interacts with scale, i.e. the large sprawling
n
06, 2008 1:48 PM
>To: Joel Jaeggli
>Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: RE: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918"
>
>
>I'll reply below with //s. My point is still: most companies do not use
>RFC1918 correctly. Your point seemed to be that it is not a large e
ak the spec
and configure non-random ones )
/TJ
>-Original Message-
>From: Darden, Patrick S. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:19 PM
>To: Marshall Eubanks; Joel Jaeggli
>Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: RE: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
---
One way to do it...
I
oks like it will continue to work ok for some time...
--p
-Original Message-
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:31 PM
To: Darden, Patrick S.
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918"
That's co
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 be
al Message-
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:31 PM
To: Darden, Patrick S.
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918"
That's comical thanks. come back when you've done it.
//Ok.
Marshall is correct.
riginal Message-
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:36 PM
To: Darden, Patrick S.
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918"
Darden, Patrick S. wrote:
Most organizations that would be doing this would n
Actually, rereading this, I agree. My experience is large companies take it
all, using huge swathes inefficiently, instead of doing it right. In my
previous post I was answering the question I thought you were asking, not your
real question.
I agree with you both.
I think that RFC1918 Could
12:36 PM
To: Darden, Patrick S.
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918"
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 subne
Subject: Re: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918"
Darden, Patrick S. wrote:
*randomly* from the reserved pool of private addresses, when
You're supposed to choose ula-v6 /48 prefixs randomly as well...
Any bets on whether that routinely happens?
While you're home c
172.16/12 use?
--p
-Original Message-
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:21 AM
To: Darden, Patrick S.
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918"
Darden, Patrick S. wrote:
*randomly* from th
On 06/08/2008 4:44, "Matthew Kaufman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Well, you can always do what one of the companies I work with does:
> allocate from 42.0.0.0/8 for networks that might need to interoperate
> with 1918 space and hope that it is "forever" before we run so low on
> IPv4 space
it to
work this way (imho).
--p
-Original Message-
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:21 AM
To: Darden, Patrick S.
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918"
Darden, Patrick S. wrote:
>*r
On Aug 6, 2008, at 7:44 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
Darden, Patrick S. wrote:
Most private networks start at the bottom and work up: 192.168.0.X++,
10.0.0.X++, etc. This makes
any internetworking (ptp, vpn, etc.) ridiculously difficult. I've
seen
a lot of hack jobs
using NAT to get around
Darden, Patrick S. wrote:
Was looking over 1918 again, and for the record I have only run into one
network that follows:
"If two (or more) organizations follow the address allocation
specified in this document and then later wish to establish IP
connectivity with each other, then there
Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> do what one of the companies I work with does: allocate from
> 42.0.0.0/8
some italian isps use blocked american military /8s. i find that highly
amusing, especially when i think of the long-term implication for the
folk who blocked access to that they wanted to 'own'.
r
Darden, Patrick S. wrote:
Most private networks start at the bottom and work up: 192.168.0.X++,
10.0.0.X++, etc. This makes
any internetworking (ptp, vpn, etc.) ridiculously difficult. I've seen
a lot of hack jobs
using NAT to get around this. Ugly.
Well, you can always do what one of the co
s do the Fortinet devices.
-Original Message-
From: Darden, Patrick S. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 7:26 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918"
Was looking over 1918 again, and for the record I have only run into one
network
Was looking over 1918 again, and for the record I have only run into one
network that follows:
"If two (or more) organizations follow the address allocation
specified in this document and then later wish to establish IP
connectivity with each other, then there is a risk that address
u
26 matches
Mail list logo
