Re: 192.168 - why?

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:51:06 -0500, Chris "Saundo" Saunderson <saundo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

AZ Nomad wrote:
\[snippage]

Who the *** has thousands of machines at home? I'm a serious geek
and never need more than a dozen address, including vmware session on
my main desktop that aren't using hostonly or NAT.

If you have several hundred thousand machines, you can probably afford a
more sophisticated network than what suffice for a home network.

Very true, but the use of RFC-1918 addresses is not limited to home
users. The Very Large Corporation I work for has been migrating from
publicly routable address space for servers in datacenters, and more
importantly, desktops, in order to

a) conserve IPv4 address space allocated to us, and;
b) improve routing internally, by allowing sane aggregation, and;
c) improving security by being able to drop RFC-1918 addresses from
inside the network at the border, as all routers that are connected to
the Internet at large should.

A corporation with 100,000 employees isn't going to need nonroutable
addresses. They're going to have a network topography a bit more
sophisticated than a $45 linksys.


.

Quantcast