From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Aug 10 12:50:38 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (shell.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EC5937B5BF for ; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 12:50:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([216.152.68.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Thu, 10 Aug 2000 12:50:31 -0700 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Dale E. Chulhan" , "My List" , Subject: RE: Non-standard internal addressing Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 12:50:34 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <3991FD90.511D6EC9@uwi.tt> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > The private IP network allocations include one Class A network, > 10.0.0.0; 16 > Class B networks, 172.16.0.0-172.31.0.0; and 256 Class C networks, > 192.168.0.0-192.168.255.0 > What are the ramifications of using non allocated addresses for > an INTRANET > connecting to the outside world through a proxy using say > 200.0.0.1-200.0.0.255 > 255.255.0.0 Well, one company I worked for used non-allocated addresses for its Intranet. Everything worked just fine until they signed their largest contract ever with a large airplane manufacturer. Turns out that this airplane manufacturer had been actually assigned the same block of IP addresses they randomly chose for their Intranet. Surprise, surprise -- our new largest customer couldn't access any of our protected servers. Is there some advantage to not using the private address space? This should be an no-brainer. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message