Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 01:52:06 +0200 From: Philippe Regnauld <regnauld@I23.EU.org> To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, briann@wrsec.wrsec.fr Subject: Re: Unnumbered lines. Message-ID: <19980703015206.18977@tetard.glou.eu.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980702013246.18536x-100000@resnet.uoregon.edu>; from Doug White on Thu, Jul 02, 1998 at 01:33:32AM -0700 References: <3.0.32.19980630120747.00a71100@wrsec.fr> <Pine.BSF.3.96.980702013246.18536x-100000@resnet.uoregon.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Doug White (dwhite) écrit/writes: > On Tue, 30 Jun 1998, Brian Nash wrote: > > > "Unnumbered Lines" as described in: > > > > rfc 1812 "Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers", section 2.2.7 > > As far as I can tell, no; ppp and slip links require IPs for both ends. > Nothing saying that they can't be fake IPs though :) In fact, there are three possibilities: 1) Use the "real" address of the host -- saves addresses -- on the ppp link 2) use "unnumbered links", if supported 3) use RFC1918, or anything you feel like, on the link (like 10.0.0.1, 10.0.0.2) Problem with 3) it is makes for nasty-looking, or even strange traceroutes. The advantage for internal use is the possibility to use the DNS to label links, like: 10.0.0.1 my.side.of.the.link.to.my.provider 10.0.0.2 his.side ... looks neat :-) -- -[ Philippe Regnauld / regnauld@eu.org / +55.4N +11.3E @ Sol3 / +45 33241690 ]- 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?19980703015206.18977>