Date: Tue, 4 Jul 1995 08:16:07 -0400 From: Gene Stark <gene@starkhome.cs.sunysb.edu> To: Atsushi Murai <spec.co.jp!amurai@sbstark.cs.sunysb.edu> Cc: davidg@Root.COM, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: another reason not to change 0.0.0.0 into 192.0.0.1 in PPP Message-ID: <199507041216.IAA02453@starkhome.cs.sunysb.edu> In-Reply-To: Atsushi Murai's message of Tue, 04 Jul 1995 15:25:36 %2B0900 References: <3tav4s$209@starkhome.cs.sunysb.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I've been reading about half of the *many* messages on this 192.0.0.1 thing. I have seen one *very* strong argument as to why 192.0.0.1 should not be used to request assignment of an address, and that is that it is a valid internet address that is even in use by someone. A weaker, but still cogent, reasons are that it is not specified for this purpose in any RFC or spec. On the other hand, I have seen *no* reason why it should continue to be used except perhaps that somebody's ISP seems to want this during the negotiation phase. Basically, it sounds like somebody coding the stuff decided that they needed a way to represent an address that is to be assigned by the provider, so they said, "Let's use J. Random Class C address: 192.0.0.1". It went in the code and that was that. This isn't a good reason for it to be there. I don't understand the valid *technical reason* why Atsushi is fighting tooth and nail over this change. Until such reasons are proposed, it seems to me that David has done the right thing. - Gene Stark
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199507041216.IAA02453>