renumbering and roaming

Forrest W. Christian forrestc at iMach.com
Mon May 18 18:01:12 UTC 1998


On Mon, 18 May 1998, Paul Mansfield wrote:

> 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
> [the addresses chosen for /30 netmasks, I think that in my Monday morning
> brain-state I got it right?]

Actually, you can get away with only using a /32.    With host routes and
tagging the address as a secondary on a loopback, you don't need more than
a single address.

However, I agree that we need to have a standard address set.  It would
make everyone's life so much easier.

I would recommend getting a single /24 allocated (probably from the swamp)
and reserved for this use, instead of utilizing existing PA space, as
there may be some situations where you walk on top of an already allocated
PA space, and by having something not listed in the PA RFC you end up
getting away from clueless people who utilize PA space.

So this last paragraph is understood and I don't get flames because of a
misunderstanding, here's a better statement of what I'd like to see done:

1)  Have a RFC written which contains the following:

    a) A list of initial services which are covered under this
    b) The IP addresses of the initial services, from the new /24
    c) A pointer to IANA where an up to date list of allocations from
       the /24 can be found.
    d) Maybe some recommendations for some handling of certain univiersal
       services - such as web proxy - when there is no service available.
       (Ping the address and if no response, assume that that service
       is not provided and go at the web directly)

2) Based on 1c above, have the IANA maintain a list of standard IP
addresses.

Now, I realize that we just stepped out of the lines of nanog.   Is there
an appropriate IETF forum to discuss this in?

BTW, I would be interested in co-authoring this RFC.

- Forrest W. Christian (forrestc at imach.com) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
iMach, Ltd., P.O. Box 5749, Helena, MT 59604      http://www.imach.com
Solutions for your high-tech problems.                  (406)-442-6648
----------------------------------------------------------------------





More information about the NANOG mailing list