On 12/2/11 09:59 , Michael Richardson wrote: > > > Ted, your response does not address what I said at all. Not > > one bit. Let's assume that *every* enterprise used every > > last address of 172.16/12 (and, for that matter ever bit of > > 1918 space). That's irrelevant and still does not address my > > question. The question is whether these addresses are used > > BY EQUIPMENT THAT CAN'T NAT TO IDENTICAL ADDRESSES ON THE > > EXTERIOR INTERFACE. I am happy to accept an answer of, "Yes, > > all 1918 address space is used by such equipment", but > > nobody, including you, has actually said that. > > one reason enterprises use 172.16/12 for stuff is because that way, > when their VPNs come up with people's residents, they do not immediately > conflict with the LAN at the home/coffee shop, etc.
realistically a sufficiently large enterprise uses all of rfc 1918 in one form or another... you're counting on to some extent the more specific route associated with the subnet leaving the covering vpn route unclobbered. sometimes however heroic work-arounds are required. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
