nanog mailing list archives
Re: 10.0.0
From: "Alec H. Peterson" <ahp () hilander com>
Date: Sat, 31 May 1997 10:46:10 -0400
On Sat, May 31, 1997 at 02:42:16AM -0400, Philip J. Nesser II wrote:
I would like to contidict your statement of "not a Really Optimal Solution" and state that it is a really good solution. The value of a uniques address is its routability. For purely transit links what does it matter? Using an RFC 1918 net for your internal network is a good move for providers to provide transit. It provides great flexibilty in your numbering options and as long as you don't leak your IGRP routes your AS the only thing it effects is traceroutes.
On top of that, it makes the InterNIC (or insert your favorite address space allocation body here) very happy to know that you are trying to stretch your existing address space as far as possible when going to ask for more. Alec -- +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ |Alec Peterson - ahp () hilander com | Erols Internet Services, INC. | |Network Engineer | Springfield, VA. | +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
Current thread:
- 10.0.0 Janet Pippin (May 30)
- Re: 10.0.0 Ehud Gavron (May 30)
- Re: 10.0.0 Jared Mauch (May 30)
- Re: 10.0.0 Paul Ferguson (May 31)
- Re: 10.0.0 Bil Herd (May 31)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: 10.0.0 Dave O'Shea (May 30)
- Re: 10.0.0 Philip J. Nesser II (May 30)
- Re: 10.0.0 Alec H. Peterson (May 31)
- Re: 10.0.0 John Hawkinson (May 31)
- Re: 10.0.0 Philip J. Nesser II (May 30)
- Re: 10.0.0 Danny McPherson (May 31)
- Re: 10.0.0 Daniel Senie (May 31)
- Re: 10.0.0 Dave O'Shea (May 31)
- Re: 10.0.0 Tony Li (May 31)
- Re: 10.0.0 Ehud Gavron (May 30)