29 Apr
2013
29 Apr
'13
9:13 p.m.
Another comment, though there are always unique design cases, why
would you want NAT with 44net addresses? There are so many addresses
and the benefits to running native addressing across a network are
unrivaled.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 29, 2013, at 4:42 PM, "C.J. Adams-Collier KF7BMP"
<cjac(a)colliertech.org> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
I've never seen anyone treat 44.128.0.0/16 like 1918 space in production
routers. So don't assume that these addresses are unique on the
internet unless you blackhole that route inbound from your wan link.
That said, I've used that address space sometimes when other machines
want to manage all of rfc1918 space and I want private address space.
YMMV.
On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 17:25 -0400, Jim Alles wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
from the wiki at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMPRNet:
44.128.0.0/16
44.128.x.x is the testing subnet and consists of 65,536 (216)
addresses. Much akin to 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12, 169.254.0.0/16 or
192.168.0.0/16, this is an unroutable private IP block. Connectivity
to the rest of the network should be given through router
gateways much as one would do with Network address translation in any
other private IP block.
There is no attribution to that statement, and nothing I could find at
AMPR.org
Is this the best way to address devices when doing NAT into a private
network? Any issues?
Or are there advantages to requesting assigned numbers?
thanks & 73,
Jim Alles
_________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net
http://www.ampr.org/donate.html