On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Joshua Judson Rosen <roz...@hackerposse.com > wrote:
> On January 9, 2015 5:56:43 PM EST, John Abreau wrote: > >What are your project's needs that explicitly require 4K distinct > >public > >addresses and that cannot function using private addresses and NAT > >instead? > > 'Project' is a geographically-distributed tech company with a bunch of > frequently-mobile sub-networks where at least one end of any given > 'internal' connection actually needs to be going out from behind someone > else's network. > > There's certainly a chance that, say, our VPN or LAN addresses won't > conflict with any of the arbitrarily-addressed host networks where the VPN > endpoints reside, but we'd really rather have a routing scheme that 'will > work' as opposed to something that 'might work'. > That kind of logic is kind of exactly why they put constraints in place. The idea is, does it need to be a routable address on the public internet. It seems like the answer is no, it'd just be nice so I wouldn't have to worry about conflicts. Thomas
_______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
