Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
--- On Mon, 2/2/09, David Coulson <david@davidcoulson.net> wrote:
I'm curious - Any particular technical reason not to assign out of 0.0.0.0/8? Can't say I've ever tried to use it, but I'd think it should work.
I have long wondered why two entire /8s are reserved for host self identification (0 and 127, of course...) - it's too bad that we can't use either those or class E space while folks {delay | prepare for} ipv6 adoption... David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com
On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 12:53:35 PST, David Barak said:
I have long wondered why two entire /8s are reserved for host self identification( 0 and 127, of course...)
It's part of the whole '2**32 addresses should be enough" viewpoint (keep in mind they were coming from NCP, that had a limit of 256 addresses).
participants (2)
-
David Barak
-
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu