[1663] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Static IP addresses for Dial-up
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christian Huitema)
Mon Jan 29 06:37:10 1996
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 12:19:19 +0100
To: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: huitema@pax.inria.fr (Christian Huitema)
Cc: "Brian Carpenter CERN-CN" <brian@dxcoms.cern.ch>, peter@unipalm.pipex.com,
nanog@merit.edu, cidrd@iepg.org, iab@isi.edu
At 9:36 PM 29/1/96, Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU> wrote:
>Incidentally, absolutely no-one seems to doubt that if I have
>two systems at home, on a baby-lan, I can have a /29 or /30
>statically assigned to me (at 50% or less address effeciency),
>but that if I have just one it seems I'm not supposed to have
>a /32 (100% address effeciency). Weird...
Yes. Combine this with IP over Direct-TV, where the PC address must be
synchronized between the out-bound telephone channel (semi-permanent) and
the in-bound satellite channel (permanent). Also combine with IP mobility,
which assumes that the mobile is keeping its IP address while roaming.
Also combine with IP over CATv, where a PC at home has essentially the same
requirement as a PC at work.
All in all, at least one address per computer is a very reasonable goal,
one which we have zero reason to legislate away.
Christian Huitema
