IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: Implications of Various Address Allocation Policies for Internet

Robert Moskowitz <rgm3@is.chrysler.com> Thu, 15 February 1996 14:55 UTC

Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19056; 15 Feb 96 9:55 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19052; 15 Feb 96 9:55 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa29937; 15 Feb 96 9:55 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19043; 15 Feb 96 9:55 EST
Received: from copilot.is.chrysler.com by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18960; 15 Feb 96 9:53 EST
Received: by pilotx.firewall.is.chrysler.com; id KAA06343; Thu, 15 Feb 1996 10:14:51 -0500
Received: from clhubgw1.is.chrysler.com(172.29.128.203) by pilotx.is.chrysler.com via smap (g3.0.1) id sma006329; Thu, 15 Feb 96 10:14:26 -0500
Received: from rgm3 ([172.16.24.23]) by clhubgw1.is.chrysler.com (5.x/SMI-4.1) id AA07479; Thu, 15 Feb 1996 09:54:28 -0500
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960215145228.006ab5d8@pop3hub.is.chrysler.com>
X-Sender: t3125rm@pop3hub.is.chrysler.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 09:52:28 -0500
To: Dorian Kim <dorian@cic.net>
X-Orig-Sender: ietf-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm3@is.chrysler.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: Implications of Various Address Allocation Policies for Internet
Cc: Jim Forster <forster@cisco.com>, Mathew Lodge <lodge@houston.omnes.net>, ietf@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 09:53:25 -0500
Resent-From: ietfadm@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Resent-To: ietf-list@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US

At 06:25 AM 2/15/96 -0500, Dorian Kim wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Feb 1996, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
>> As I recall, there is one case that breaks this.  Where your internal
>> address space gets assigned to someone else on the big-I.  Then the NAT
>> could have interesting routing problems.
>
>One place private address space (RFC1597 (has that been updated 
>recently?) comes in very handy. I know of a customer who has done this + 
>NAT, and is very happy with result.

True.  That was one of our reasons for creating the private address space so
that the need of a double firewall would be avoided.

Robert Moskowitz
Chrysler Corporation
(810) 758-8212

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email