|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: renumbering and roaming
On Mon, 18 May 1998, Ben Buxton rose up and penned these lines to NANOG: > > if all ISPs agreed to use these addresses... say > > - TWO resolvers, e.g. 192.168.254,1 and 192.168.253.1 !snip! > 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.. The actual addresses wouldn't matter (I'm sure IANA could release a couple of unused class Cs for example) as long as all ISPs ensure that they used the same ones for "local" services. As you say, 192.168.*.* would probably be unsuitable as a lot of people use these already. One really nifty side effect could be to make it harder to spam through other ISP's relays if the relays which had to be relatively open for customers weren't visible on the 'net at large. Paul ---- P Mansfield, Senior SysAdmin PSINet, +44-1223-577577x2611/577611 fax:577600 *** If a grand piano had a rubout key, I'd be a concert pianist by now! ***
|