How is RFC 1918 addressing used in a network?
How is RFC 1918 addressing used in a network?
RFC 1918 addresses, also known as private IP addresses, are used within private networks and cannot be routed on the public Internet. They are typically utilized in conjunction with Network Address Translation (NAT) in order to conserve public IPv4 addresses. NAT allows devices on a private network to share a single public IP address for accessing external networks and the Internet, effectively preserving the limited pool of available public IPv4 addresses.
C is correct https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/RFC-1918#:~:text=Along%20with%20NAT%20(network%20address,before%20the%20adoption%20of%20IPV6.
I think its actually B the RFC 1918 was published in 1996. RFC 2663 (NAT) was published in 1999. It is not clear in the RFC 1918 that it was developed with NAT in mind
Comment makes no sense it literally says it in the introduction. "This document describes address allocation for private internets. The allocation permits full network layer connectivity among all hosts inside an enterprise as well as among all public hosts of different enterprises. The cost of using private internet address space is the potentially costly effort to renumber hosts and networks between public and private." https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1918
"This document describes address allocation for private internets. The allocation permits full network layer connectivity among all hosts inside an enterprise as well as among all public hosts of different enterprises. The cost of using private internet address space is the potentially costly effort to renumber hosts and networks between public and private." https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1918
RFC 1918 refers to private IP addresses that provide an added level of protection against internet exposure.
NAT alone preserves IPV4 addresses RC 1918 alone preserves IPV4 addresses I can't see how the two are connected or used together! That's why I am not picking C
RFC 1918, Page 8, No.6 says "Security issues are not addressed in this memo". To name two main points being addressed in this memo, turn to Page 1, No.2, under Motivation; states that " One challenge is a concern within the community that globally unique address space will be exhausted." Secondly, it continues in Page 2 and states ," A separate and far more pressing concern is that the amount of routing overhead will grow beyond the capabilities of Internet Service Providers." Besides, IPv4 private addresses are not routable. I do get why you would pick "protection against internet exposure" in this sense. There's now way in or out of the internet with these blocks without NAT. However, using NAT Overload (aka PAT) or even Dynamic NAT, helps alleviate the said exhaustion problem by mapping private addresses to one inside global address.
C is correct obviously since RFC 1918 refers to Private IPV4 addressing
C is correct By allowing many devices to share a small set of public IP addresses, the implementation of RFC1918 and NAT alleviated the pressure on the dwindling pool of globally unique IPv4 addresses. https://netbeez.net/blog/rfc1918/
B&C are both technically correct. Having a LAN with private IP addresses scheme is common and does keep the network more secure and NAT is used with that to access outside networks. But what if I have a LAN like an Intranet where I need no outside access ? Just a BS question where both answers are very plausible since both are covered in RFC1918.
C is correct.
Actually RFC 1918 goes with NAT
Since RFC itself said it, I would go with C.