From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Jan 27 9:45:48 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mail2.uniserve.com (mail2.uniserve.com [204.244.156.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE4C1156E4 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 09:45:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tom@uniserve.com) Received: from shell.uniserve.ca ([204.244.186.218]) by mail2.uniserve.com with esmtp (Exim 3.03 #4) id 12Dsyy-000Nvs-00; Thu, 27 Jan 2000 09:45:24 -0800 Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 09:45:22 -0800 (PST) From: Tom X-Sender: tom@shell.uniserve.ca To: "Rodney W. Grimes" Cc: Mike Bristow , "N.B. DelMore" , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Multiple IP addresses In-Reply-To: <200001271219.EAA76809@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > Looks like a job for netalias: see > > http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=12071 > This hack promotes violation of ARIN and other IN registry policies > regarding use of IP space. Huh? What? I hope that isn't the reason why it isn't being accepted? I can see legitimate reasons why the patch isn't accepted but that isn't one of them. I can violate ARIN policies well enough without this patch. I've had outside consultants inform me how their clients use ancient Cisco AGS routers to dead-enter entire CIDR blocks so they pass the standard. On a side note, I'd actually like to see a mechanism to attach owners to IPs, and allows owners to bind to ports < 1024. Perhaps some sort of role-based control system needs to be looked at. Tom Uniserve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message