NAT addresses - RFC or tradition?

[Paul Blondé <jpb@entel.ca>]

I've noticed that a lot of people use the 192.168.X.X subnet for internal
networks, is this (and the less-used 10-series) a requirement of some RFC,
or a recommendation that has become tradition?

We are using a completely different subnet, something similar to (for
example) 42.127.129.X to further obfuscate the internal network from
outside. This, and many other examples, produces a class-A subnet mask (some
produce a class-B) when entered in WinXP's TCP/IP dialog, although the
actual mask we use with it is class-C.

Is this a no-no? Will it break our server's IPTables when communicating with
it? Am I in for a lot of trouble? The addresses don't seem to cause any
problems, but I don't want this to jump up and bite us in the bottom
sometime down the road.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Paul Blondé