[33106] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andrew Brown)
Fri Dec 29 13:49:02 2000
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 13:44:53 -0500
From: Andrew Brown <twofsonet@graffiti.com>
To: John Fraizer <nanog@EnterZone.Net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20001229134453.A275@noc.untraceable.net>
Reply-To: Andrew Brown <atatat@atatdot.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0012291325410.23018-100000@Overkill.EnterZone.Net>; from nanog@EnterZone.Net on Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 01:27:04PM -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>Andrew, It wasn't my intention to insult you. I was aware of the fact
>that it was BT's network (or a client of theirs). It was just a general
>comment.
nor was it my intention to make you think that i had been insulted.
i'm not, honestly. :)
i was just grumbling about the use of rfc1918 addresses in public
networks (yes, even though i don't require direct connectivity to
thpose hops, i still think it's a stupid thing to do) and the way a
lot of peple don't seem to care.
--
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org * "ah! i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com * "information is power -- share the wealth."
