[51729] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP address fee??
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Schulte)
Thu Sep 5 15:24:27 2002
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 14:21:25 -0500
To: Etaoin Shrdlu <shrdlu@deaddrop.org>
From: Christopher Schulte <schulte+nanog-post@nospam.schulte.org>
Cc: Nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <3D77A4C9.3A692245@deaddrop.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 11:39 AM 9/5/2002 -0700, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
> > At least as importantly, why do 254 addresses get provided where the
> > actual need might not warrant that quantity?
>
>Because it's easier to do the reverse DNS? Sorry to contribute to the
>general noise, but that answer's close to the truth.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2317.html
Easier maybe... But with classless delegation of IN-ADDR.ARPA
this should not be an issue any longer.
>--
>...some sort of steganographic chaffing and winnowing scheme
>already exists in practice right here: I frequently find myself
>having to sort through large numbers of idiotic posts to find
>the good ones. -- Rufus Faloofus
--
Christopher Schulte
http://www.schulte.org/
Do not un-munge my @nospam.schulte.org
email address. This address is valid.
