Hacker News Reader

Comment by sneak | Hacker News Reader

Ugh, yet another L2 VPN project that misuses non-rfc1918 (that is, assigned) address space for their pet project.

Just... don't.

RFC1918 will likely not work since NAT'd users will be using ZeroTier. But there is a solution to this EXACT problem. RFC6598! http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6598

I think they could safely use 100.64.0.0/10 -- It's arguably designed for this kind of thing.

> Just... don't.

Let's hear the alternatives.

I'll give you 10 peers, each on its own RFC1918 subnet. You give me a flat addressing scheme that doesn't involve NAT and IP6, requires no manual configuration on peers' part and keeps them on a single connected (in routing terms) network, so that broadcasts and multicasts work. Go!

MPLS from a big ISP....

Yes, sure, for 10 bucks a month.. :)

How exactly? Connect these three, for example -

  Peer 1: 192.168.0.111/16
  Peer 2: 172.16.0.222/12
  Peer 3: 10.0.0.333/8

10.0.0.333 <- this one is going to present a problem, I can tell you right away ^_^

Whoops :)

Not an uncommon practice these days... Tell that to cellular networks and cable providers. We need IPv6.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r28371780-Why-is-my-internet...

http://android.stackexchange.com/questions/11388/are-tmobile...

As someone who inherited a similar system, its a massive pain. Have world routable internal IP addresses is utterly utterly dull.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com