IP address fee??

Christopher Schulte schulte+nanog-post at nospam.schulte.org
Thu Sep 5 19:21:25 UTC 2002


At 11:39 AM 9/5/2002 -0700, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
> > At least as importantly, why do 254 addresses get provided where the
> > actual need might not warrant that quantity?
>
>Because it's easier to do the reverse DNS? Sorry to contribute to the
>general noise, but that answer's close to the truth.

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2317.html

Easier maybe... But with classless delegation of IN-ADDR.ARPA
this should not be an issue any longer.

>--
>...some sort of steganographic chaffing and winnowing scheme
>already exists in practice right here: I frequently find myself
>having to sort through large numbers of idiotic posts to find
>the good ones.   -- Rufus Faloofus

--
Christopher Schulte
http://www.schulte.org/
Do not un-munge my @nospam.schulte.org
email address.  This address is valid.




More information about the NANOG mailing list