On Fri, 6 Nov 1998, David R. Conrad wrote:
Why do my users have to be dynamically addressed but @home's do not?
Could it be because when the allocation was made, dynamic addressing was not available for the cable boxes whereas dynamic assignment for dialup has been available since dirt was new?
And NAT boxes have been available almost as long. [unecessary rant removed] Brandon Ross Network Engineering 404-815-0770 800-719-4664 Director, Network Engineering, MindSpring Ent., Inc. info@mindspring.com ICQ: 2269442 Stop Smurf attacks! Configure your router interfaces to block directed broadcasts. See http://www.quadrunner.com/~chuegen/smurf.cgi for details.
And NAT boxes have been available almost as long.
"Almost as long". Right, so @Home should have put all their customers on either non-existant or untried technology with no other possible option for providing services should that technology not work? Great idea. In fact, what's your beef? Why deal with the evil bastards at ARIN at all? Why not put all your customers behind NATs like you're suggesting @Home should have done?
[unecessary rant removed]
The whole subthread is unnecessary. The net 24 allocation is ancient history. The IANA felt the situation justified overriding InterNIC's initial decision, the allocation was made, @Home used the space. Whining about it now seems pretty pointless. Regards, -drc
participants (2)
-
Brandon Ross -
David R. Conrad