nanog mailing list archives
Re: [NANOG] RFC1918 conformance
From: "Jeffrey C. Ollie" <jeff () ollie clive ia us>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 14:23:20 -0600
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:04:19 +0300 (MSK), alex () relcom eu net writes:
Sorry, but while I was looking to this list, I just reminded interesting issue. Why IANA did not reserved 223.255.0.0/16 or something simular; by other words, I'd like to have short (256, 512, 1024) private address space in the END of total address space for the normal IP (excluding D class etc). For example. I have a lot of CISCO routers with OSPF protocol. Thnis crazy IOS use highest loopback interface address as router-ID address; I use loopbacks to install load balancing etc. and I can't prevent loopbacks from being equal on the different routers. That's why I hardly need some IP addresses for 'Loopback 98' interface to use it as router-ID; and this have to be higher than any user's addresses. I use 233.255.254.0/24 for this purposes, but it's not reserved address. This is one, simple, example why it's nessesary to reserve some short address space in the begin and in the end of total addresses.
No, that's an example of a poorly designed protocol implementation. One ought to be able to specify an arbitrary router id for OSPF (heh - even Bay routers can do that :) rather that relying on such an odd algorithm. I was so surprised by this that I just had to go look it up: <http://www.cisco.com/univercd/data/doc/software/11_2/cnp1/5ciprout.htm#REF38888> The equivalent Bay reference: <http://support.baynetworks.com/Library/tpubs/content/114065A/J_55.HTM#HEADING55-6> [A copy of the headers and the PGP signature follow.] Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 14:23:20 -0600 From: "Jeffrey C. Ollie" <jeff () ollie clive ia us> In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 11 Feb 1997 22:04:19 +0300." <Pine.SUN.3.91.970211213356.1420T-100000@virgin> Subject: Re: [NANOG] RFC1918 conformance To: nanog () merit edu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: AnySign 1.4 - A Python tool for PGP signing e-mail and news. iQCVAwUBMwDVPZwkOQz8sbZFAQEXugP/csBBgGpX2pDm14HDL3RJAmzQIbqgQ+Tu cxTNolAGpgUIXTx1zJEUqfIREZ9CnTe2BBdbD1BNpn8Ns/m9iY7yKtbNzHWOS2yR dGkwhRrnXefjh3KPt/iGFVfwndpzYEzjZIpIUAfslfujY03bPXQe0YgTRt68q34S 13cWSHT1C3I= =wM5u -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Jeffrey C. Ollie | Should Work Now (TM) Python Hacker, Mac Lover | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- RFC1918 conformance Pierre Thibaudeau (Feb 10)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Andrew Partan (Feb 10)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Bill Manning (Feb 11)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Andrew Partan (Feb 11)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Tony Bates (Feb 11)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Alex P. Rudnev (Feb 11)
- Re: [NANOG] RFC1918 conformance Jeffrey C. Ollie (Feb 11)
- Re: [NANOG] RFC1918 conformance Alex P. Rudnev (Feb 12)
- Re: [NANOG] RFC1918 conformance Dana Hudes (Feb 12)
- Re: [NANOG] RFC1918 conformance Alex P. Rudnev (Feb 13)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Jeffrey C. Ollie (Feb 13)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Bill Manning (Feb 11)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Andrew Partan (Feb 10)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Andrew Partan (Feb 11)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Tony Bates (Feb 17)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance bgp4-adm (Feb 10)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: RFC1918 conformance Brett D. Watson (Feb 10)
- Re: RFC1918 conformance David Schwartz (Feb 10)