At 12:24 PM 4/9/95, Carl Jolley wrote:
>A few months ago when we contacted the InterNIC about "private" IP addresses,
>they said that if internal, private IP addresses were going to be used,
>they MUST be from the RFC1597 addresses. I got the definite impression that
The Internic cannot tell you how to run the inside of your network,
unless and until it reaches out to the rest of the world. Any outside
person or agency claiming that they can dictate what computers and links do
in the privacy of their corporate networks needs to learn a little more
about real-vs-theoretical power.
On the other hand, perhaps they are claiming moral, rather than
legal, imperative. That is, perhaps they are saying that you really
WANT/OUGHT to use the private addresses. To them I say, perhaps. That is,
if you MUST do SOME private address, then perhaps the "official" private
ones are the better choice. RFC1627 has some counter-arguments, but I'd
class them as mild.
>they did not agree with the overall conclusions expressed in RFC1627.
Lots of folks don't agree.
While nothing is ever this simple, the pro-private/anti-private
camps seem to divide between public providers vs. organization inhouse
operators. The former, of course, suffer the least if renumbering is
required.
d/
--------------------
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg Consulting +1 408 246 8253
675 Spruce Dr. fax: +1 408 249 6205
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 dcrocker @
networking .
stanford .
edu
|
|
