From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Aug 18 11: 3:15 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FB9337B4A9; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 11:03:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ussenterprise.ufp.org (ussenterprise.ufp.org [208.185.30.210]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A052343E6E; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 11:03:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bicknell@ussenterprise.ufp.org) Received: (from bicknell@localhost) by ussenterprise.ufp.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) id g7II31775250; Sun, 18 Aug 2002 14:03:01 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from bicknell) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 14:03:01 -0400 From: Leo Bicknell To: Terry Lambert Cc: Alfred Pythonstein , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Insider's scoop: Why FreeBSD is dying Message-ID: <20020818180301.GA74970@ussenterprise.ufp.org> References: <3D5F6D87.76848740@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D5F6D87.76848740@mindspring.com> Organization: United Federation of Planets Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In a message written on Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 02:48:55AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > Examining the headers, it looks like Hotmail has a full class "B" > (64.4/16); that's surprising. Why the heck do they have a full They seem to have 64.4/18. 64/8 and 65/8 are being chopped up for smaller allocations by the registries. > class B?!? If you are using load balancers for distribution, then > you basically need only enough IP addresses to provide publically > accessible VIPs to the various public services you export as seperate > entities. There's no *way* they have 65,534 (subtracting out the > unusable ones) of those! No one providing network services should ever be required to use any technology other than plain IP to provide it. That includes NAT and load balancers. If they want to have 10,000 machines (which, by the way, I believe they have well over from some press stuff on them) exposed to the Internet, and merely have a front end web server that directs users to the appropriate server more power to them. Having seen first hand the disaster that most NAT and load balancers create I know I'd avoid them if at all possible. > Maybe it's just so that if a host gets RBL'ed or otherwise > blacklisted, they can switch IPs, and won't have an interruption > of email service to their customers? If that's the case, that I'd point out most black lists are fairly good at checking registry allocation data, and blocking all the mail servers in a block if Spam continues. So if that were a problem you'd see 64.4/18 on the block list. ARIN has guidelines for allocating IP's. I don't agree with all of them, but they are fully documented on www.arin.net. I don't believe Microsoft was able to get around that process. So they are playing by the same rules and guidelines as anyone else. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message