On Fri, 19 Jun 1998, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
Generally though, I don't find 172.16.0.0/12 in use anywhere, so it is possible that could be used. (See rfc1918).
Hmm :) I have a problem with 10/8, 172.16/12 and 192.168/16. We are using bits of all of them.
That said, I think where possible, its worth going to some effort to prevent these private numbers from being used externally by an 'net connected organisation. I know a couple of people are currently using 192.168 number for router interfaces and its a bit of a pain sometimes.
Agreed. My opinion is that any bit of network that is shared by two
completely disparate organisations should not use rfc1918 address space.
This is especially true when you have lots of people sharing the network,
and you have no idea where it is going to lead in the future.
Joe
--
Joe Abley