nanog mailing list archives
Re: Internic address allocation policy
From: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg () ripe net>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 1995 13:19:15 +0100
> Jonathan Heiliger <loco () aimnet net> writes: > > I was actually just tossing the idea around of using the RFC 1597 > networks that "shouldn't be announced" to the outside world for > parts of our infrastructure. The only downside I can see is that > DNS will fail to function on that part of our network. RFC1597 suggests simple ways to get around that.
Current thread:
- Internic address allocation policy Paul Lustgraaf (Mar 17)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy ATM_Feel_the_Power (Mar 17)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy ATM_Feel_the_Power (Mar 17)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy ATM_Feel_the_Power (Mar 18)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Michael S. Ramsey (Mar 18)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy ATM_Feel_the_Power (Mar 18)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Karl Denninger (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Jonathan Heiliger (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Daniel Karrenberg (Mar 20)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Hans-Werner Braun (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Karl Denninger (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Hans-Werner Braun (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Karl Denninger (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy ATM_Feel_the_Power (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Paul A Vixie (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Alan Hannan (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Karl Denninger (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Ed Morin (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy George Herbert (Mar 19)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy ATM_Feel_the_Power (Mar 17)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy ATM_Feel_the_Power (Mar 17)