From owner-cvs-usrsbin Mon Jul 3 23:14:23 1995 Return-Path: cvs-usrsbin-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id XAA15900 for cvs-usrsbin-outgoing; Mon, 3 Jul 1995 23:14:23 -0700 Received: from specgw.spec.co.jp (specgw.spec.co.jp [202.32.13.1]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id XAA15888 ; Mon, 3 Jul 1995 23:14:17 -0700 Received: from tama3.spec.co.jp (tama3 [202.32.13.252]) by specgw.spec.co.jp (8.6.5/3.3Wb-SPEC) with SMTP id PAA12346; Tue, 4 Jul 1995 15:08:57 +0900 Message-Id: <9507040619.AA00089@tama3.spec.co.jp.spec.co.jp> Date: Tue, 04 Jul 1995 15:19:09 +0900 From: Atsushi Murai To: davidg@Root.COM Cc: CVS-commiters@freefall.cdrom.com, cvs-usrsbin@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/ppp ipcp.c In-Reply-To: <199507040600.XAA09220@corbin.Root.COM> X-Mailer: AL-Mail 0.94Beta Sender: cvs-usrsbin-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk David Greenman wrote: :>"Justin T. Gibbs" wrote: :>: :>:This topic has been rolling around on the mailing lists for some time now. :>:All comments have been that the mapping is bogus. No RFCs mention the :>:magic address "192.0.0.1". This combined with all of the other reasons :>:stated on this list make it fairly obvious that the mapping is wrong. I :>:think that these are the reasons that David made the change. I don't :>:think David missed any of the steps you show on your list. As soon as :>:you find a reason for the code to be reverted, it will be. :> :>Do you find a magic address "0.0.0.0" for such use on RFC ? : : Well, 0.0.0.0 may not be a "real" IP address, but it is the default for :uninitialized interfaces. 192.0.0.1, however, is a valid address and is even :assigned to someone! Yes. As I mentioned in direct mail to you. I can agree with it but why don't we think of Address allocation for Private Internets address for this purpose ? (RFC1597) :-DG Atsushi. -- Atsushi Murai E-Mail: amurai@spec.co.jp SPEC Voice : +81-3-3833-5341 System Planning and Engineering Corp.