BIND 9.2.1 and TCP

[Mark_Andrews at isc.org]

> 
> Cricket Liu wrote:
> 
> > Kevin Darcy wrote:
> > > Sorry, I shouldn't have assumed it was public.
> > >
> > > Still, it's somewhat disgusting to mix public and private addresses
> > > like that, not to mention the sheer number of NS records in the
> > > RRset. IMHO amd.com is in serious need of subzoning.
> >
> > Why is mixing routable and RFC 1918 addresses disgusting?  At
> > HP, we used both net 15 and RFC 1918 addresses internally.
> > I'm sure lots of companies use a mix.
> 
> I guess we're rather disenchanted in general with RFC 1918 (ironic,
> since one of the co-authors was a Chrysler guy), having gone through a
> big merger, trying to get B2B stuff working over the ANX via IPSEC,
> dealing with over-the-Internet VPNs, etc. The overall problems with RFC
> 1918 are magnified, however, when it has been used willy-nilly with
> seemingly no rhyme nor reason, so that you stumble across each landmine
> one at a time...
> 
> At least I never put any of my intranet nameservers on RFC 1918
> addresses...
> 
> 
> - Kevin

	It's more a case of people trying to use them is places they
	wern't designed to be used.  If you need to connect to someone
	outside of your site then you should have a globally routable
	address.  If not RFC 1918 address are fine for communication.

	Mark
--
Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark.Andrews at isc.org