[123] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: EP.NET ???
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@ISI.EDU)
Mon Jul 31 09:54:32 1995
From: bmanning@ISI.EDU
To: roll@stupi.se (Peter Lothberg)
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 06:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: bmanning@ISI.EDU, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <CMM.0.90.0.807021197.roll@Junk.Stupi.SE> from "Peter Lothberg" at Jul 29, 95 02:33:17 pm
>
>
> begin kludge
>
> interface fddi0/0
> ip address yor.own.net.work your.mask.as.desired
> ip address bill.assigned.c.net 255.255.255.0 secondary
>
> end kludge;
>
>
> If the box decides to send a ICMP message out on the interface
> that faces the RA pirated network it will use the primary address, so
> it will show up with the name and network number you prefer.
>
> -Peter
What does this have to do with domain naming? You have a clever hack to
provide a private path between consenting adults. The numbers assigned
at exchange points are done by mutual consent. If you don't like the
numbers, then you don't have to attach, or you can get everyone else
at a specific exchange to agree to change them. If the exchange point
wants another entity to manage the address mapping, that is possible
as well.
A brief history. The RA had reserved a block of addresses for use at the
Sprint NAP. Sprintlink had done the same. The Sprintlink block was/is
the block in use. The RA was managing the domain naming for a while and
then Sprintlink asked to manage the space. The zones were transfered
promptly and without hassle. Now if I had refused to transfer the zones,
then you might have a valid complaint.
The RA is not "pirating" anything here.
--
--bill
