From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Jan 25 17:02:35 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA08680 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 25 Jan 1998 17:02:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from misery.sdf.com (misery.sdf.com [204.244.213.32]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id RAA08667 for ; Sun, 25 Jan 1998 17:02:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tom@sdf.com) Received: from tom by misery.sdf.com with smtp (Exim 1.73 #1) id 0xwcgd-00065L-00; Sun, 25 Jan 1998 16:46:03 -0800 Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 16:46:02 -0800 (PST) From: Tom To: Dave Marquardt cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IPv6 In-Reply-To: <85zpkk1n0h.fsf@localhost.zilker.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk On 25 Jan 1998, Dave Marquardt wrote: > Currently IBM uses socks and HTTP proxies, but it's conceivable that > someday IBM might start using more modern firewalls, that would allow > the 9 addresses out to the Internet directly. Why would they want to do that? Proxies help to hide the internal addresses. If the internal addresses are hidden, why use allocated IP address space at all? Seems very wastely. InterNIC seems to agree with me, as they won't allocate blocks unless 25% are connected to the Internet immediately, and 50% within a year. > -Dave Tom