Date: Sun, 01 Jun 1997 06:55:55 +1000 From: michael butler <imb@scgt.oz.au> To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch), freebsd-current@freefall.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ctm Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970601065555.006cc364@localhost> In-Reply-To: <19970531180113.RA12588@uriah.heep.sax.de> References: <199705301253.OAA04727@sliphost37.uni-trier.de> <Pine.BSF.3.91.970529234559.364C-100000@Journey2.mat.net> <199705300624.IAA03466@sos.freebsd.dk> <199705301253.OAA04727@sliphost37.uni-trier.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> 13 border6-fddi-0.Dallas.mci.net (204.70.114.66) 203 ms 215 ms 219 ms >> 14 amicus-networks.Dallas.mci.net (204.70.147.70) 207 ms * 211 ms >> 15 10.1.1.3 (10.1.1.3) 230 ms 187 ms 187 ms >10.1.1.3 is a `private' network. You should never see such an address >in public. Something is broken there. It is, however, quite valid and useful to address intermediary routers with numbers chosen from these private networks .. so long as their administrator can still reach them :-) It has the (significant) advantage of guaranteeing that no-one else can play with your gear. With address space being harder and harder to get, using private (sub)nets in this way can save you *lots* of numbers for hosts that really need global access, michael
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.1.32.19970601065555.006cc364>