nanog mailing list archives
Re: renumbering and roaming
From: Phillip Vandry <vandry () Mlink NET>
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 14:06:48 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 18 May 1998, Blake Willis wrote:Would it be terribly unreasonable to suggest assigning a reserved /24 explicitly for internal ISP services such as those listed below, and write up some sort of rfc for the whole ordeal, so that there are no conflicts with 1918 space? -BlakeAnyone care to co-author an RFC suggesting a sensible global standard for "local" mail relays, time servers, resolvers etc so that dial-in people can roam without getting filtered, blocked etc?
How about defining 192.x.y.port-number, where port-number is the port number of the service. 192.x.y.53 is the DNS server, etc.. Nah, good idea, but too many useful services with port numbers > 255, so it doesn't work too well. -Phil
Current thread:
- Re: ARIN allocating /20 netblocks?, (continued)
- Re: ARIN allocating /20 netblocks? Blake Willis (May 17)
- Re: ARIN allocating /20 netblocks? Michael Shields (May 18)
- renumbering and roaming Paul Mansfield (May 18)
- 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)