From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jul 4 20:34:52 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id UAA00524 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 4 Jul 1995 20:34:52 -0700 Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [198.137.146.49]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id UAA00513 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 1995 20:34:45 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rover.village.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id VAA22858; Tue, 4 Jul 1995 21:32:49 -0600 Message-Id: <199507050332.VAA22858@rover.village.org> To: Atsushi Murai Subject: Re: another reason not to change 0.0.0.0 into 192.0.0.1 in PPP Cc: davidg@Root.COM, hackers@FreeBSD.org In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 04 Jul 1995 15:25:36 +0900 Date: Tue, 04 Jul 1995 21:32:48 -0600 From: Warner Losh Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk : How about this ? The addresses that you listed are part of RFC 1597's delegation for networks not attached to the internet (but see RFC 1627 for a different point of view). You'd not want to use those addresses unless the rest of the internet will never see them. The list, from RFC 1597 is: 10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255 172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255 192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255 However, both RFC's have the official status of "Informational", which means that this could change at any time. IANA has reserved these addresses, but could, in the future (in theory) reallocate them to some other purpose. Warner