Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 11:15:10 -0600 From: "Jim Fleming" <jfleming@anet.com> To: "Cliff Sarginson" <cliff@raggedclown.net>, "FBSD Questions" <questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: internal private IP address standards? Message-ID: <003301c180d5$100c1060$a300a8c0@ipv16> References: <LPBBIGIAAKKEOEJOLEGOIEOJCIAA.barbish@a1poweruser.com> <000601c18066$c61a0ca0$6600000a@ach.domain> <20011209162254.GC23351@raggedclown.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
----- Original Message ----- From: "Cliff Sarginson" <cliff@raggedclown.net> > > > > 10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255 (10/8 prefix) > > 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 (172.16/12 prefix) > > 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 (192.168/16 prefix)" - RFC 1918 > > > > Full text can be found at: > > http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1918.html > > > Yes, and what would be the point of using any others on the private > side of your net ? > Sounds like a bad pointless idea to me..as well as a recipe for > confusion. > http://files.zeroconf.org/draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal.txt Stuart Cheshire Document: draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal-04.txt Apple Computer Expires 19th January 2002 Bernard Aboba Microsoft 19th July 2001 Dynamic Configuration of IPv4 Link-Local Addresses <draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal-04.txt> .... 2.5 Link-Local Addresses Are Not Forwarded Any host sending an IPv4 packet with a source and/or destination address in the 169.254/16 prefix MUST set the TTL in the IP header to 255. Any host receiving an IPv4 packet whose source and/or destination address is in the 169.254/16 prefix MUST discard the packet if the TTL in the IP header is not 255. ..... Link-local addresses are only unique amongst the member hosts of a single link. ------- People are trying to move away from ARP. The concept of Link-Local Addresses attempts to do that. ARP has caused a lot of problems. You fundamentally had IEEE hardware people, with little or no understanding of Computer Science concepts of Data Structures, Processes, Objects or Routing, focused on wiring topologies and completely missing the big picture goal of having a large seemless ocean of communicating objects, with methods and messages glueing things together. Meanwhile, the Internet Protocol people were living in their world of 20-byte IPv4 Headers, attempting to stay independent of the media used to transport the packets (messages). Despite their attempts, ARP entered the picture, to turn the glorious broadcast-oriented Ethernet into point-to-point (NIC-to-NIC) connections, and 32-bit IP addresses got woven into that ARP negotiation. People assumed that only public 32-bit addresses could be used in that ARP negotiation, but then people realized that in order to free themselves from the ARP, Ethernet, Token-Ring and outside-the-IP-header swamp, they could sacrifice so-called private addresses, such as 10.x.x.x to the ARP swamp. That at least gets the NIC cards talking, and then software in the stacks can then once-again get back to the business of building the ocean of communicating objects. IPv6 has of course been hopelessly pulled into the IEEE swamp and appears to be headed down the same path as IPv4. New developers are in a very good situation to avoid the hardware swamps, and to work at a level where their software will live on beyond the useless debates about how to wire LANs. This may help... http://www.dot-biz.com/IPv4/Tutorial/ The Netfilter Project: Packet Mangling for Linux 2.4 http://netfilter.samba.org Jim Fleming http://www.IPv8.info IPv16....One Better !! http://www.ddj.com/articles/search/search.cgi?q=fleming Oct93: The C+@ Programming Language To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?003301c180d5$100c1060$a300a8c0>