1 / 3

Architectural argument for another prefix

Architectural argument for another prefix. Fred. RFC 1918. If the prefix is used to address private networks, and therefore free public address space for use in a network, Note that this was the intended use of the RFC 1918 address space: NATs had not been invented.

gaenor
Download Presentation

Architectural argument for another prefix

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Architectural argument for another prefix Fred

  2. RFC 1918 • If the prefix is used to address private networks, and therefore free public address space for use in a network, • Note that this was the intended use of the RFC 1918 address space: NATs had not been invented

  3. If the address space is used for CGN: • Assume networks “south” of the CGN are NAT’d and use RFC 1918 address space • To route between address spaces, they have to have separate addresses. • Therefore, ?.?.?.?/?? Cannot be an RFC 1918 address Wild wooly Internet ?.?.?.?/?? 10.0.0.0/8 192.168.0.0/16 10.0.0.0/8 172.16.0.0/12

More Related