IP addresses question
Patrick M. van Eijk patrick.van.eijk at pi.net
Thu Dec 21 19:24:57 CET 1995
Dear Jean-Francois, As the largest ISDN dial-in provider for internet-customers in the Netherlands we have established a network (270 B-channels) with IP address pools wich are dynamically assigned to the BRI/PRI ports. We'll be happy to advice you (as a local-registry for ripe we also see the need for maintaining the current IP space !). Lets have a contact early next year (due to hollidays). Greetings Patrick M. van Eijk General Manager Network Operations & Services Planet Internet Holding B.V. E-mail : pvaneijk at pi.net --- On Wed, 20 Dec 1995 17:57:51 +0100 (MET) Jean-Francois Stenuit <jef at donald.interpac.be> wrote: >Received: from ncc.ripe.net (ncc.ripe.net [193.0.0.129]) by mailhost.pi.net (8.6.12/8.6.11) with SMTP id TAA01558; Wed, 20 Dec 1995 19:21:36 +0100 >Received: by ncc.ripe.net > id AA08214 (5.65a/NCC-2.30); Wed, 20 Dec 1995 18:00:08 +0100 >Received: from donald.interpac.be by ncc.ripe.net with SMTP > id AA08206 (5.65a/NCC-2.30); Wed, 20 Dec 1995 18:00:03 +0100 >Received: from donald (jef at localhost [127.0.0.1]) by donald.interpac.be (8.7.1/8.7.1) with SMTP id RAA27224 for <local-ir at ripe.net>; Wed, 20 Dec 1995 17:57:53 +0100 (MET) >Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 17:57:51 +0100 (MET) >From: Jean-Francois Stenuit <jef at donald.interpac.be> >X-Sender: jef at donald >To: local-ir at ripe.net >Subject: IP addresses question >Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.90.951220174843.27069A at donald> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >Content-Length: 1337 > >Hello, > >We are currently fixing our routing policy for clients using dialup-ISDN >connections and are facing some problems. > >Theorically (Cisco point of vue), avery network should have a different >number. That means we need 3 network ranges (our network, ISDN network >and client network). > >As IP address space is becoming quite scarce these days, we don't want to >use registered addresses for the ISDN network (it doesn't have to be >visible from the Internet). > >We have three solutions : >- use RFC1597 addresses, but there is no reverse DNS for such addresses > (problem when doing a traceroute) >- use some kind of unnumbered scheme, but it's difficult to manage on > Cisco routers with multiple dial-in BRI. >- use a registered addresses anyway ... > >Any advice, experience ? > >-- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >/Jean-Francois "Jef" Stenuit | Interpac Belgium NV/SA | // Amiga \ >\Internet administrator | 350/358 Avenue Louise Box 11 | \\// fanatic / >/Phone (32)(2) 646-6000 | B-1050 Brussels | \/ \ >\Fax (32)(2) 640-3638 | Belgium | & SparcStation / >/Email stenuit at interpac.be | | addict ... \ ><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > -----------------End of Original Message----------------- ------------------------------------- Name: Patrick M. van Eijk E-mail: pvaneijk at pi.net Date: 21-12-95 Time: 10:24:57 -------------------------------------
[ lir-wg Archives ]