Date: Tue, 04 Jul 1995 15:19:09 +0900 From: Atsushi Murai <amurai@spec.co.jp> To: davidg@Root.COM Cc: CVS-commiters@freefall.cdrom.com, cvs-usrsbin@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/ppp ipcp.c Message-ID: <9507040619.AA00089@tama3.spec.co.jp.spec.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <199507040600.XAA09220@corbin.Root.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM> wrote: :>"Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@freefall.cdrom.com> wrote: :>: :>:This topic has been rolling around on the mailing lists for some time now. :>:All comments have been that the mapping is bogus. No RFCs mention the :>:magic address "192.0.0.1". This combined with all of the other reasons :>:stated on this list make it fairly obvious that the mapping is wrong. I :>:think that these are the reasons that David made the change. I don't :>:think David missed any of the steps you show on your list. As soon as :>:you find a reason for the code to be reverted, it will be. :> :>Do you find a magic address "0.0.0.0" for such use on RFC ? : : Well, 0.0.0.0 may not be a "real" IP address, but it is the default for :uninitialized interfaces. 192.0.0.1, however, is a valid address and is even :assigned to someone! Yes. As I mentioned in direct mail to you. I can agree with it but why don't we think of Address allocation for Private Internets address for this purpose ? (RFC1597) :-DG Atsushi. -- Atsushi Murai E-Mail: amurai@spec.co.jp SPEC Voice : +81-3-3833-5341 System Planning and Engineering Corp.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9507040619.AA00089>