poole@eunet.ch writes:
Perhaps you don't have big companies in Switzerland, whatever do I know about Switzerland. But there are cases when Big Company connect to a small outside company, providing something special and as Small Company don't connect to Internet they must use RFC 1597 and eventually Small-2 has been told the same story and use the same first numbers from RFC 1597, but when Big Company want to have a link to Small-2 as well, this becomes a problem.
If you'd followed the IETF list you would know that I made a comment pointing these problems out a -long- time ago, in particular from the point of collisions RFC-1597 is substantially worse than picking addresses at random (and no better than the time honored tradition of using addresses from Sun).
There is a serious omission in RFC1597: We did not recommend that people who forsee external connection requirements should choose their RFC1597 addresses at random. We just assumed that people would be clever enough to figure that out by themselves. This will be fixed in the next version of the RFC. However we did say: Groups of organisations which foresee a big need for mutual communication can consider forming an enterprise by designing a common addressing plan supported by the necessary organisational arrangements like a registry. If they choose to have Bjorn do that for them it is perfectly OK. However Bjorn should be *very* clear about the fact that this address space is still "private" and that there is no guarantee of uniqueness outside the set of organisations participating in this voluntary scheme! Of course the guarantee of uniqueness from public address space remains. Can we close this side discussion? Daniel