renumbering and roaming

Mon May 18 11:49:22 UTC 1998

Then we have a special /24 or so that is in another RFC that is "service
provider independent service addresses". Allocate it out of the swamp
(192.x.x.x for those too young) and treat it just like private address
space, but the convention is that no one uses it for "corporate" addressing.

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu]On Behalf Of
> Ben Buxton
> Sent: Monday, May 18, 1998 1:23 PM
> To: Paul Mansfield; Michael Dillon
> Cc: nanog at merit.edu
> Subject: Re: renumbering and roaming
>
>
> On Mon, May 18, 1998 at 10:59:16AM +0100, Paul Mansfield wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 17 May 1998, Michael Dillon turned on his computer and typed:
> > > On Sun, 17 May 1998, Michael K. Smith:
> > >
> > > IMHO every dialup customer from every ISP in the world should use
> > > 192.168.254.1 for their DNS address and this number should be
> hard coded
> > > as the default in all client software. Then this problem
> would go away.
> >
> > if all ISPs agreed to use these addresses... say
> > 	- TWO resolvers, e.g. 192.168.254,1 and 192.168.253.1
> > 	- two mail relays, e.g. 192.168.254.5 and 192.168.253.5
> > 	- two news servers, e.g. ---254.9 and 253.9
> > 	- two ntp time servers
> > 	- etc etc
>
> Of course, if a customer has a LAN out the back of the same machine
> they're connecting from, and it's using these addresses (which
> they are entitled to use), then it'll cause immense headaches..
>
> --
> Ben Buxton___bb at zip.com.au_____    o    _          _--_|\   ZIP
> Internet P/L
> Zip's Network Dude
> /____|___|_)________/______\______________________
> Carbon:   9270-4777                    | .        \_.--._*    Virtually
> Silicon: 9273-7111, 9247-7288    Paper: 92475276        v     the best :)
>