I think this is too wordy; and that such long comments in configuration
files are uncalled for.

If it belongs anywhere, perhaps it belongs in the manual page?

Problem is this is not the final story.  I bet some parts of it will
change over the coming year already.

> Now that the IPv4 address space if fully allocated, perhaps it's time to
> update the comments in /etc/hosts ? Here is my attempt at a reasonably concise
> update:
> 
> 
> 
> # Assignments from RFC5735 (supersedes RFC1918)
> #
> # Allocated for use as the Internet host loopback address:
> #   127.0.0.0/8
> #
> # Allocated for communication between hosts on a single link. Hosts obtain
> # these addresses by auto-configuration (in the absence of DHCP):
> #   169.254.0.0/16
> #
> # Addresses within these blocks do not legitimately appear on the public
> Internet
> # and can be used without any coordination with IANA or an Internet registry:
> #   10.0.0.0/8      private networks
> #   172.16.0.0/12   private networks
> #   192.168.0.0/16  private networks
> #   192.0.2.0/24    documentation/examples
> #   198.51.100.0/24 documentation/examples
> #   203.0.113.0/24  documentation/examples
> #   198.18.0.0/15   benchmark interconnect testing
> #
> # Full assignments details are available here:
> # http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.txt
> #
> 
> 
> 
> More contentiously, this is an IPv6 counterpart:
> 
> 
> 
> # Allocated for use as the Internet host loopback address:
> #   ::1/128
> #
> # Allocated special purpose address blocks:
> #   fe80::/10      Link local addresses (auto-configured)
> #   fc00::/7       Unique local address (private networks)
> #   2001:db8::/32  documentation/examples
> #   2001:2::/48    benchmark interconnect testing
> #
> # Full assignments details are available here:
> #
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments/ipv6-unicast
> -address-assignments.txt
> 
> 
> 
> Note that I interpret the aim of these comments as an aide-memoire, rather
> than a tutorial on IP addressing schemes, so it's intentionally brief.
> 
> 
> /Pete

Reply via email to