At 08:40 PM 1/5/01, Willy Schoots wrote:
>If this
>attempt to locate a DHCP server fails, the Windows 2000 DHCP client
>autoconfigures its stack with a selected IP address from the IANA-reserved
>class B network 169.254.0.0 with the subnet mask 255.255.0.09 . The DHCP
>client tests (using a gratui
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 Address
MS started using the private addressing thing with Windows 98...
Z
>From: Priscilla Oppenheimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Priscilla Oppenheimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: A question regarding private addressing
>Date: Fri,
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 p
red 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
My limited understanding on these addresses are that they should ONLY be
used on your local
lans. Communication to the internet via an ISP would have to be dealt with
by using NAT or some
other proxy mechanism such as a firewall in which the outside addresses are
registered.
..dj
"Craig Columbu
Let's try for some perspective on 169.254 and related issues. Trying
to remember an IETF hallway discussion, I think with Jeff Schiller of
MIT (might have been Bill Manning), the convention for using this
particular block originated at MIT, not either Apple or Microsoft.
Don't confuse this me
all
myself?"
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Craig Columbus
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 7:49 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: A question regarding private addressing
OK. I can accept that Microsoft (or Apple
On May 29, 5:24am, Craig Columbus wrote:
}
} OK. I can accept that Microsoft (or Apple for that matter) would do
} something like this and then expect the world to revolve around
Actually, as Howard mentioned, neither of these companies
initiated the protocol, but that's a minor point.
At 10:37 PM 1/6/01, John Nemeth wrote:
>On May 29, 5:24am, Craig Columbus wrote:
>}
>} OK. I can accept that Microsoft (or Apple for that matter) would do
>} something like this and then expect the world to revolve around
>
> Actually, as Howard mentioned, neither of these companies
>initia
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Priscilla Oppenheimer
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 4:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: A question regarding private addressing
At 10:37 PM 1/6/01, John Nemeth wrote:
>On May 29, 5:24am, Craig Columbus wrote:
>}
>} OK. I can accept that
Let me make some comments fundamentally for background. It's
increasingly considered useful to minimize the amount of
configuration that an end station needs to do before becoming active.
Servers and routers are special cases.
DHCP is stateful: the DHCP server remembers what addresses have be
Let me make some comments fundamentally for background. It's
increasingly considered useful to minimize the amount of
configuration that an end station needs to do before becoming active.
Servers and routers are special cases.
DHCP is stateful: the DHCP server remembers what addresses have been
13 matches
Mail list logo
