Top Document: comp.dcom.sys.cisco Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Yes there is, however whether you wish to do so is an issue of
some debate.
You could consult:
1627 Network 10 Considered Harmful (Some Practices Shouldn't be
Codified). E. Lear, E. Fair, D. Crocker & T. Kessler. June 1994.
(Format: TXT=18823 bytes)
1918 Address Allocation for Private Internets. Y. Rekhter, B.
Moskowitz, D. Karrenberg, G. J. de Groot & E. Lear. February 1996.
(Format: TXT=22270 bytes) (Obsoletes RFC1627, RFC1597) (Also BCP0005)
In any event, RFC 1918 documents the allocation of the following
addresses for use by ``private internets'':
10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255
172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255
192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255
Most importantly, it is vital that nothing using these addresses
should ever connect to the global Internet, or have plans to do so.
Please read the above RFCs before considering implementing such
a policy.
As an additional note, some Internet providers provide network-management
services, statistics gathering, etc. It is unlikely (if at all possible)
that they would be willing to perform those services if you choose to
utilize private address space.
With the increasing popularity and reliability of address translation
gateways, this practice is becoming more widely accepted. Cisco has acquired
Network Translation, who manufacture such a product. It is now available as
the Cisco Private Internet Exchange. With it, you can use any addressing you
want on your private internet, and the gateway will insure that the invalid
addresses are converted before making out onto the global Internet. It also
makes a good firewall. Information on this product is available at
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/751/pix/index.html
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4