Re: 192.168 - why?
- From: AZ Nomad <aznomad.3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:41:39 -0500
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:10:06 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
AZ Nomad <aznomad.3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:51:06 -0500, Chris "Saundo" Saunderson <saundo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
True, but they're in a league where the reason to use non-routable IP
addresses is to limit external access -- another, very valid, reason.
Don't get me wrong, I really like the fact that I can ssh straight to
either of the machines sitting in my office. But if we were starting
from scratch and I were the guy designing the network, the only
external access would be to a relatively small number of exposed
machines.
If I ssh to work, it is via a vpn and my work's DNS server will give
me addresses that don't correspond to anything on the internet.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 192.168 - why?
- From: Joe Pfeiffer
- Re: 192.168 - why?
- References:
- 192.168 - why?
- From: Antonio Macchi
- Re: 192.168 - why?
- From: Lew Pitcher
- Re: 192.168 - why?
- From: AZ Nomad
- Re: 192.168 - why?
- From: Chris \"Saundo\" Saunderson
- Re: 192.168 - why?
- From: AZ Nomad
- Re: 192.168 - why?
- From: Joe Pfeiffer
- 192.168 - why?
- Prev by Date: troubleshooting
- Next by Date: Re: 192.168 - why?
- Previous by thread: Re: 192.168 - why?
- Next by thread: Re: 192.168 - why?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|