RE: Fixed IP / IP ranges

["Alex Monaghan" <ha@xxxxxxx>]

Many years ago I used to work for NT (47.0.0.0/8) and the RFC's for NAT
etc... weren't written, you had a formal IP address if you were Internet
connected or you made one up if you weren't :-) In those days you could
route internally to a border router and then out onto the Internet. This
used to be the norm, hackers wrote efficient code and the WWW hadn't been
thought of. Who knew at this time that there'd be millions of people at
home
needing to re-use these addresses ?

The same can probably also be said for most class B addresses !

Fondly remembering the days when Internet Email was obtained via a link
(shared by all sites in the UK) to the USA and the email was via a telnet
session to a mail system on a mainframe somewhere in North America :-)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gerard McGovern [mailto:stuff@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: 10 July 2003 14:53
> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Fixed IP / IP ranges
>
>
> > Yeh well said.... and if I may add why the hell the need for
> > a /29 (7 ips @ home on an adsl connection). You can't do any
> > serious serving at home anyway. Come on folks there aint that
> > many ipv4 addresses around so this is just a waste.
>
> Actually I read an article that suggested if IPs were allocated
properly
> then we'd be fine for quite some time. I'll copy and paste this from
an
> article I found:
>
> "It's being deliberately created by groups with financial
interests in a
> move to IPv6. Check out webpage...
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
for some real
> stupidity.
> The following all have 16 million public IP addresses, except HP which
has
> 32 million. We're talking a grand total of over 240,000,000, yes
> folks *TWO
> HUNDRED AND FORTY MILLION PUBLIC IP ADDRESSES* assigned to outfits
that
> don't really need them (see below). Then there are companies where
every
> desktop has a public address. This is not only wasteful, but stupid
> security-wise. You do *NOT* want your desktops accessable from
> outside. NAT
> lets them surf the net, thank you. Furthermore, discussions in
anti-spam
> groups indicate that *ASSIGNED* address ranges that belong to bankrupt
> companies have been hi-jacked by spammers, because nobody's
> around to claim
> the addresses. The so-called shortage is a joke. The only question in
my
> mind is whether this is incompetence or deliberate waste in an effort
to
> force IPv6 before it's really necessary.
>
> General Electric has 16 million addresses (3.0.0.0/8) even though it
has a
> policy of *NOT* routing them externally. GE goes and gets other
address
> ranges for its external-facing servers. Sheesh.
>
> Xerox (13.0.0.0/8)
>
> HP started out with 16 million (15.0.0.0/8) and acquired Compaq which
had
> acquired Digital and its 16 million (16.0.0.0/8). HP now has
*THIRTY-TWO
> MILLION* public IP addresses.
>
> Apple (17.0.0.0/8)
>
> MIT (18.0.0.0/8)
>
> Ford (19.0.0.0/8)
>
> Halliburton (34.0.0.0/8)
>
> Eli Lily (40.0.0.0/8)
>
> Bell-Northern (47.0.0.0/8)
>
> Prudential Securities (48.0.0.0/8)
>
> Department of Social Security UK (51.0.0.0/8)
>
> Dupont (52.0.0.0/8)
>
> Merck (54.0.0.0/8)
>
> USPS (56.0.0.0/8)"
>
> G
>
> --
>
>   º • º • º • º • º • º • º • º
>   Gerard McGovern
>
>     w: http://www.inkiboo.com
>     m: +44 7782 244 388
>
>     aim: inkiboouk  y!: inkiboo  msn: gerard@xxxxxxx
>
>     "women can keep a secret just as well as men,
>      but it just takes more of them to do it"
>
>
>
>
> ** UKHA2004 BE THERE! ** - start planning now.
>
> http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
> Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
> List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>