Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(October 1996)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: IP addresses
From: "Jim Leo" <ADMIN @ everett . pitt . cc . nc . us>
Organization: Pitt Community College
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1996 09:37:30 EST5EDT
To: Joe Loiacono <jloiacon @ csc . com>, firewalls @ greatcircle . com
Reply-to: admin @ everett . pitt . cc . nc . us

On 22 Oct 96 at 9:19, Joe Loiacono wrote concerning Re: IP addresses

> Jim Leo wrote:
> > 
> > OK,
> >         Call me slow. RFC 1627? aside. What are the practical/logistical
> > arguments against 'private/virtual' IP numbers VS. Public IP numbers.
> > I'm currently faced with a real world scenario. I'm running out of
> > 'Public' IP numbers and everyone wants one. Traffic management is of
> > paramount importance, so sub-netting is a real world issue. I've
> > currently started research into PIX vs NAT, and it seems to be a
> > 'prudent' course until IPv6 arrives (currently vapor-ware). So what
> > other choice does one have???
> > 
> > Jim Leo
> > admin @
 everett .
 pitt .
 cc .
 nc .
 us
> > 
> > 'don't blink....'
> 
> What about DHCP? This should give you some breathing room if it's not
> likely that every single host will be active at one time. If you don't
> want to take that chance, then it may not be appropriate.
> 
> Joe

Looked at that issue. That would be a second choice. We are currently 
looking at becoming an access point for the local school system and 
will need to have a large number of IP's available....

Jim


Follow-Ups:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: IP addresses
From: Joe Loiacono <jloiacon @ csc . com>
Next: CERN/W3C HTTPd as proxy (SUMMARY)
From: Damien Miller <dmiller @ vitnet . com . sg>
Indexed By Thread Previous: RE: IP addresses
From: Ron DuFresne <dufresne @ parka . winternet . com>
Next: Re: IP addresses
From: bmanning @ ISI . EDU

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com