Re: Static IP addresses for Dial-up

Christian Huitema <> Mon, 29 January 1996 14:00 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18037; 29 Jan 96 9:00 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa17562; 29 Jan 96 8:58 EST
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07009; 29 Jan 96 8:55 EST
Received: from ( []) by (8.6.10/8.6.10) with ESMTP id WAA11466 for <>; Mon, 29 Jan 1996 22:37:32 +1100
Received: from [] by (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA03495; Mon, 29 Jan 1996 12:19:19 +0100
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 12:19:19 +0100
Message-Id: <v02120d07ad326d43069a@[]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Robert Elz <>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Christian Huitema <>
Subject: Re: Static IP addresses for Dial-up
Cc: Brian Carpenter CERN-CN <>,,,,

At 9:36 PM 29/1/96, Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>; wrote:

>Incidentally, absolutely no-one seems to doubt that if I have
>two systems at home, on a baby-lan, I can have a /29 or /30
>statically assigned to me (at 50% or less address effeciency),
>but that if I have just one it seems I'm not supposed to have
>a /32 (100% address effeciency).   Weird...

Yes.  Combine this with IP over Direct-TV, where the PC address must be
synchronized between the out-bound telephone channel (semi-permanent) and
the in-bound satellite channel (permanent).  Also combine with IP mobility,
which assumes that the mobile is keeping its IP address while roaming.
Also combine with IP over CATv, where a PC at home has essentially the same
requirement as a PC at work.

All in all, at least one address per computer is a very reasonable goal,
one which we have zero reason to legislate away.

Christian Huitema