[PLUG] Naming RFC 1918 networks...

Tim tim-pdxlug at sentinelchicken.org
Sat Aug 7 17:00:06 UTC 2010


> There are arguments that RFC1918 was a bad idea because companies merge
> and their IP address space conflicts.  Well, Dynamic DNS should solve
> that problem.  I assign RFC 1918 addresses statically via DHCP, which is
> an oxymoron.  If I could assign from a pool of IP addresses and send the
> MAC address and assigned IP address as well as requested host name to a
> DNS server and dynamically generate a zone file, I'd never have a
> collision problem.  There is limited unique address space even if you
> get an IPv6 block, so solving the problem of collisions by having
> everyone use global IP blocks is not practical.  One problem I
> face for network root, how do I update the hosts file if I'm doing
> dynamic dns?

Many issues are solved in IPv6 by the introduction of "Unique Local"
address spaces.  (Yes, "Site Local" address spaces made the same
mistake as RFC 1918, which is why they're deprecated.)  Since any host
can have both a unique-local address and a global address, you don't
need NAT, but you can still have address portability when switching
ISPs for internal communications.

There is also a lot of interest in, and tools for, more carefully
managing address assignments and DNS records, though some of that
might still be in flux.

tim



More information about the PLUG mailing list