nanog mailing list archives
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
From: Roger Marquis <marquis () roble com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 14:44:22 -0800 (PST)
Owen DeLong wrote:
You are wrong.... Quoting from RFC 1597 (a precursor which was obsoleted by RFC 1918):
Ok, I was wrong. RFC1597 is dated 1994 and I thought the earliest references were 1995/96. The point I was trying to make is that RFC1918 and precursors were not motivated solely by address space limits. They were also motivated by the increasingly common practice of numbering internal networks with unassigned public address space. Random assignments of IP blocks had begun years before RFC1597 and were occurring in increasing numbers. "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it" or so the saying goes. Force consumers internal networks to be publicly routable and you will see history repeat itself. Roger Marquis
Current thread:
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space, (continued)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space TJ (Feb 10)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space John Curran (Feb 10)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space TJ (Feb 10)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space John Curran (Feb 10)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Matthew Palmer (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 10)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space TJ (Feb 10)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Mohacsi Janos (Feb 10)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space Jack Bates (Feb 05)