It's been my experience that when a M$ ip stack assumes this address and
mask, that it is NOT appearing on their network, and can't even talk to
same-subnet hosts in most cases. As far as benefit is concerned, I believe
that it might allow you to determine if a dhcp attempt occurred or not.
Craig Columbus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>@groupstudy.com on
01/06/2001 10:49:09 AM
Please respond to Craig Columbus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: (bcc: Kevin Cullimore)
Subject: RE: A question regarding private addressing
OK. I can accept that Microsoft (or Apple for that matter) would do
something like this and then expect the world to revolve around
them. However, I'm confused as to the benefit. Why would anyone want a
non-assigned default IP address to appear on their network? Do they really
think that people will implement a non-RFC1918 compliant address space just
to save configuration time? (Actually, I can think of several cases where
people might just go for this.)
How do Internet backbone routers (BGP ASs) deal with this traffic?
Let's say that I want to take the easy way out and I connect a small
network to the Internet via an ISP. I'm not running NAT, but I'm running
the 169.254 addresses inside my network. If I've got a static route to an
ISP public address, and we're not exchanging routing information, I can't
see how this traffic would ever get back to my network. If I'm exchanging
routes with an ISP (via BGP or some other interior protocol), where and how
do the 169.254 routes get filtered? There has to be some mechanism, or
there would be thousands of summary routes back to 169.254 showing up on
the Internet table.
Any help in understanding this is appreciated.
Thanks,
Craig
At 03:27 AM 1/6/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>On May 28, 10:03am, Priscilla Oppenheimer wrote:
>}
>} Microsoft stole this from AppleTalk. Ironically, Apple doesn't care and
in
>
> MS made a draft RFC about it, which has expired, and there is a
>new draft by Apple (see my previous note).
>
>} fact has been using the Automatic Private IP Addressing scheme for a few
>} years. I think Microsoft themselves only started using it pretty
recently.
>} (Windows 2000, you say?)
>
> No, Windows 98 does it as well (not sure about Windows 95, but it
>would be a good bet).
>
>}-- End of excerpt from Priscilla Oppenheimer
>
>_________________________________
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| This message may contain confidential and/or privileged |
| information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to |
| receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, |
| disclose or take any action based on this message or any |
| information herein. If you have received this message in |
| error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail |
| and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation. |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
