I am not sure why 10.64.0.0/10 is being discussed instead of 10.128/10 or 10.192/10... but let's assume we picked 10.192.0.0/10 instead. I'm sitting at home and my laptop currently has this interface: inet 10.2XX.XXX.XXX netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 10.2XX.XXX.XXX [specific digits replaced with "X" for paranoid reasons in case my IT dept. freaks] Note that's a VPN connection interface not on-the-wire, but it shows at least my company uses that space, and I know my company uses 10.x.x.x as well as 172.16/12 in their various internal HQ and branch office networks. In fact, this is my laptop's netstat -r output for IPv4 (again somewhat anonymized): default 192.168.1.1 UGSc 12 0 en1 10.3X.XXX/24 link#9 UC 1 0 vnic1 10.3X.XXX.XXX 0:1c:42:0:0:9 UHLWIi 1 5 lo0 10.2XX.XXX/24 link#8 UC 1 0 vnic0 10.2XX.XXX.XXX 0:1c:42:0:0:8 UHLWIi 1 5 lo0 127 localhost UCS 0 6 lo0 localhost localhost UH 0 393 lo0 169.254 link#5 UCS 0 0 en1 172.30.0.0 10.0.XXX.XXX UH 0 0 gif0 172.30 gif0 USc 1 0 gif0 192.168.1 link#5 UCS 2 0 en1 192.168.1.1 0:12:17:e1:8e:ab UHLWIi 13 2 en1 1166 192.168.1.102 c4:2c:3:2:c5:ee UHLWIi 0 39 en1 1179 192.168.1.107 localhost UHS 1 1 lo0 So you tell me how safe picking a specific RFC 1918 address space is. There are ~100,000 enterprises with over 100 employees just in the US, and ~20,000 with over 500 employees in the US. Obviously my company is a tech company so it's probably not "normal", but still it seems obvious enterprises use random 10.x.x.x and 172.16/12. -hadriel On Dec 3, 2011, at 6:53 PM, Russ Housley wrote: > Ralph: > >> Is there evidence that there are deployments today of devices that use addresses in 10.64.0.0/10? > > I have seen addresses in this space used. > > Russ > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf