IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dorian Kim <dorian@cic.net> Thu, 15 February 1996 11:27 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12556; 15 Feb 96 6:27 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12552; 15 Feb 96 6:27 EST
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa26868; 15 Feb 96 6:27 EST
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12534; 15 Feb 96 6:27 EST
Received: from nic.hq.cic.net by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12466; 15 Feb 96 6:25 EST
Received: (from dorian@localhost) by nic.hq.cic.net (8.7.3/8.6.12) id GAA02677; Thu, 15 Feb 1996 06:25:12 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 06:25:12 -0500
X-Orig-Sender: ietf-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Dorian Kim <dorian@cic.net>
X-Sender: dorian@nic.hq.cic.net
To: Robert Moskowitz <rgm3@is.chrysler.com>
cc: Jim Forster <forster@cisco.com>, Mathew Lodge <lodge@houston.omnes.net>, ietf@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Subject: Re: Last Call: Implications of Various Address Allocation Policies for Internet
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960215095917.00636520@pop3hub.is.chrysler.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.960215062341.2024B-100000@nic.hq.cic.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Resent-Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 06:25:16 -0500
Resent-From: ietfadm@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Resent-To: ietf-list@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US

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.

-dorian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email