Arien Vijn wrote:
On 26-04-2003 19:35PM, "Keith Moore" <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> wrote:
What is wrong with having addresses available for private use on
networks that do not intend on being connected to the Internet?
in principle, nothing. but experience has shown that most of those networks
do end up being connected to the Internet, while still keeping those addreses,
and that applications are expected to cope with that.
Ehm... What experience? You are referring to experiences with RFC1918
addresses in the IPv4-world, aren't you?
I think Keith is most likely referring to the experience from before
RFC1597, when isolated networks would use random addresses, and then run
into trouble when they wanted to connect. Even if the networks were
NATted, the users would suffer because they would never be able to
communicate with the legitimate holders of the addresses.
--
/=================================================================\
|John Stracke |jstracke(_at_)centive(_dot_)com |
|Principal Engineer|http://www.centive.com |
|Centive |My opinions are my own. |
|=================================================================|
|Vote for Ron, and nobody gets hurt! --actual campaign poster from|
|Chicago |
\=================================================================/