nanog mailing list archives
Re: renumbering and roaming
From: "Forrest W. Christian" <forrestc () iMach com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 12:01:12 -0600 (MDT)
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 () imach com) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- iMach, Ltd., P.O. Box 5749, Helena, MT 59604 http://www.imach.com Solutions for your high-tech problems. (406)-442-6648 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- Re: renumbering and roaming, (continued)
- Re: renumbering and roaming Ben Buxton (May 18)
- Re: renumbering and roaming Paul Mansfield (May 18)
- Re: renumbering and roaming Dean Anderson (May 18)
- spam control (was renumbering etc) through hiding relays Paul Mansfield (May 18)
- RE: renumbering and roaming Peter Galbavy (May 18)
- Re: renumbering and roaming Blake Willis (May 18)
- Re: renumbering and roaming Paul Mansfield (May 18)
- Re: renumbering and roaming Phillip Vandry (May 18)
- Re: renumbering and roaming Daniel Reed (May 18)
- Re: renumbering and roaming Dean Anderson (May 18)
- Re: renumbering and roaming Forrest W. Christian (May 18)
- Re: renumbering and roaming Michael Dillon (May 18)
- Re: renumbering and roaming Michael S. Fischer (May 18)
- Re: renumbering and roaming Karl Denninger (May 18)
- Re: renumbering and roaming Michael S. Fischer (May 18)
- Re: renumbering and roaming Paul Mansfield (May 19)
- Re: ARIN allocating /20 netblocks? Karl Denninger (May 17)