RFC 1631: The IP Network Address Translator (NAT)
datatracker.ietf.org
This memo proposes another short-term solution, address reuse, that complements CIDR or even makes it unnecessary. The address reuse solution is to place Network Address Translators (NAT) at the borders of stub domains. This memo provides information for the Internet community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.

From the conclusion:

NAT may be a good short term solution to the address depletion and scaling problems. This is because it requires very few changes and can be installed incrementally. NAT has several negative characteristics that make it inappropriate as a long term solution, and may make it inappropriate even as a short term solution. Only implementation and experimentation will determine its appropriateness.

  • neidu2@feddit.nl
    9·
    30 days ago

    Whenever I’m given the chance at work, I let my feelings be known about using “consumer grade addressing schema” in production clusters. Sure, I use it at home, but anything beginning with “192.168” looks like my moms wifi, and has no right being part of a production network.

    This comment was sponsored by the 172.16.0.0/12 gang

        • Doubletwist@lemmy.world
          1·
          29 days ago

          Well again, I’m only using /24 chunks of it.

          The main reason I went with it is that it’s far faster for me to type “10.0.x.x” than to type “192.168.x.x”, especially on the keypad.