[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
technical contact at ATT Wireless
- Subject: technical contact at ATT Wireless
- From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch)
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 23:20:46 -0400
- In-reply-to: <CADb+6TBYXvu1vhb=Mgfy6bTa+R_-J0P9Sfyq7UaXeX5MF0==LQ@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <CAJbq31Ht1dTmxa=m7VPvcULKr9z3qp47665XKGSkBXhBmy+-_Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJAdsD=HfyTLG15nE8+UMzMTOXAPKB2iPPSoOAZXV3h6rADAwA@mail.gmail.com> <CADb+6TBYXvu1vhb=Mgfy6bTa+R_-J0P9Sfyq7UaXeX5MF0==LQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Jun 28, 2012, at 10:35 PM, Joel Maslak <jmaslak at antelope.net> wrote:
> Which is why enterprises generally shouldn't use RFC1918 IPs for
> servers when clients are located on networks not controlled by the
> same entity. Servers that serve multiple administration domains (such
> as VPN users on AT&T - or on some random home Linksys box) probably
> shouldn't be addressed using addresses that conceivably could be used
> at the other end. But I'm probably fighting a losing battle saying
> that...
I've worked at places that do some combination of all public, all private and a mix..
Usually the places that work best have all public as they avoid mtu and other issues that arise. I expect the enterprise world to start coming around in the years to come to understand how they have damaged networking for the companies.
- Jared