[1833] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Miller)
Sun Feb 4 08:47:46 1996
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 08:37:18 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <david@dirigo.mint.net>
To: Hank Nussbacher <HANK@taunivm.tau.ac.il>
cc: Howard Berkowitz <hcb@clark.net>, Jon Zeeff <jon@branch.com>,
bmanning@isi.edu, curtis@ans.net, jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu,
G.Huston@aarnet.edu.au, asp@uunet.uu.net, cidrd@iepg.org, iesg@isi.edu,
local-ir@ripe.net, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199602040608.BAA03311@dirigo.mint.net>
On Sun, 4 Feb 1996, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 1996 14:29:09 -0500 (EST) you said:
> >
> >I would also be curious how the 60% missing is counted.
> >
> >If an organization places 99% of their addresses behind a firewall do all
> >those not count?
>
> If you have a class B and use a firewall, then a /27 should be more
> than is needed on the global Internet and they should use an address
> from RFC1597 internally and return the /16.
While that certainly sounds nice from the current context, there are
other reasons for wanting unique address space. Things like mergers come
to mind, as well as the expectation of better security in ipv6.
--- David Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's *amazing* what one can accomplish when
one doesn't know what one can't do!
