Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 00:51:19 -0800 From: "Crist J . Clark" <cjclark@reflexnet.net> To: Mike Nowlin <mike@argos.org> Cc: freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: rc.firewall by default does not allow nat of private internal addresses? Message-ID: <20001031005119.G75251@149.211.6.64.reflexcom.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0010310323050.18954-100000@jason.argos.org>; from mike@argos.org on Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 03:31:13AM -0500 References: <20001031000521.E75251@149.211.6.64.reflexcom.com> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0010310323050.18954-100000@jason.argos.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 03:31:13AM -0500, Mike Nowlin wrote: > On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Crist J . Clark wrote: > > > a bunch of other nets including 65.0.0.0-95.255.255.255. Unfortunately, > > although those blocks _were_ IANA reserved when she made her slides a > > few months ago, the 65/8 and 66/8 blocks have been allocated for use > > I must chuckle a bit.... (Quiet "chort, snort, gaffaw.") These are the > some of the same guys saying that "we're running out of v4 addressing > space!".... 65/8 - 95/8... 520,093,696 addresses... :) We /were/ running out of addresses back in the old days when class A addresses like those each had to be handed out to a single entity. Do a 'whois -a 65' to see how many chunks they broke 65/8 into. Now-a-days with classless routing, there really is no pressing address shortage... Now, when every device that has a microprocessor is networked and all need globally routable addresses to do IPsec AH, then we will have a problem with IPv4-space. -- Crist J. Clark cjclark@alum.mit.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001031005119.G75251>