From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Feb 16 7:48:24 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from lariat.org (lariat.org [12.23.109.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8345037B4EC for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 07:48:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp0.lariat.org@lariat.org [12.23.109.2]) by lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA07841; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 08:47:37 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010216082455.00ca3f00@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 08:47:28 -0700 To: Terry Lambert From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: Reserved IP Addresses Cc: des@ofug.org (Dag-Erling Smorgrav), dchulhan@uwi.tt (Dale Chulhan - Home), chat@FreeBSD.ORG (chat@FreeBSD.ORG), TheTechies@onelist.com (My List) In-Reply-To: <200102160030.RAA11053@usr08.primenet.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010215073629.04e80420@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 05:30 PM 2/15/2001, Terry Lambert wrote: >That's an incredibly bad idea, unless you intent is to stomp >all over the land grabs, instead of somehow legitimizing them >by recognizing their "grabbed" status. > >I'd have no problem with taking "grabbed" IP addresses, and >putting them in default firewall rule sets, without attributing >the grabbers, for example... The danger in doing this is that it legitimizes what companies such as HP have done. I always found it amusing that, when one did a reverse DNS lookup on the addresses HP has grabbed, one used to get a message saying something like: "HP.network.printer.uses.this.address.illegally". The folklore is that Jon Postel did this. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message