RFC1918 conformance

Thu Feb 13 14:01:01 UTC 1997

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:47:24 +0300 (MSK), alex at relcom.eu.net writes:
>
>On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Dana Hudes wrote:
>
>> Gated allows you to specify the ospf router id. AS others have mentioned
>> so does Bay.  Out of curiousity, is anyone running anything other than
>
>I know it well (really we have few gated-based routers there). Let me to 
>point my mind - it may be usefull to have short reserved address space in 
>the beginning (net 1.0.0.0) and the end (223.255.0.0/16 or simular) 
>address space. CISCO's router-id was used as amazing example _why it mey 
>be usefull_.

I don't think that Internet engineering decisions should be based
solely on the basis of Cisco's bad decsisions regarding their OSPF
implementation. You claim that there are other reasons why reserving
1.0.0.0/8 and 223.255.0.0/16 are a good idea. Can you share some of
these reasons? I'm not totally against reserving these networks, but I
do require more convincing.

[A copy of the headers and the PGP signature follow.]

Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 08:01:01 -0600
From: "Jeffrey C. Ollie" <jeff at ollie.clive.ia.us>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:47:24 +0300."
             <Pine.SUN.3.91.970213134530.11961d-100000 at virgin> 
Subject: Re: RFC1918 conformance 
To: nanog at merit.edu

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: AnySign 1.4 - A Python tool for PGP signing e-mail and news.

iQCVAwUBMwMeopwkOQz8sbZFAQE4gQP+N/jvy38bdxJlsqmiRhbfT9Nga6y5R57G
opT5uzRpTa2B17ikDzYUEZgmjtXKcFTj6jCNXmcNoh3Be9g5SDFqZHvaiXUrvVwG
Lcorm1iSN/x2HwXfkjKBxP7b2bAvjbCJinpIQp1cWU4BJymemwX+Bjwn7zMTtkl2
4b6oeADxi+A=
=nUMC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
Jeffrey C. Ollie                     |            Should Work Now (TM)
Python Hacker, Mac Lover             |