Re: Where rhetoric meets reality (routing)

[Ned Bedinger <ned -at- EDWORD -dot- COM>]

<much snipping done>

At 09:22 AM 6/17/99 -0600, you wrote:

>When you say non-routable IP addresses, do you mean numbers like
>435.252.531.4251 or actual IP addresses designated from the pools
>of private (not to be used on the Internet) addresses? If the former,
>that's bad news. ...

Hmmm,  reading between the lines, you handily made a thinkable alternative
to the problem examples I mentioned. Why shouldn't examples use networks
above 255 ?  I mean, compared to the ambiguity and obscurity of using
private network addresses for public internet addresses, this is
unencumbered, baggage-free terminology, which I like.  It's probably a
little too far into fantasy to capture the favor of artisanal hardware
types, but from here it looks like a winner.

>
>As a rule, publishers wouldn't do this--O'Reilly might, but the others
>we've worked with wouldn't. Support materials for books are generally
>the province of authors, and IP addresses are hard enough to come by
>for actual needs, let alone to set aside a block for examples.

Thanks, this puts the english on it. Frankly I've never tried to buy static
IP addresses so I don't know what the proposition looks like for a
long-term aquisition of IP addresses for documentation examples.  I can
lease a block of 8 static addresses for about $15/mo from my ISP, but I
guess they would churn back into the pool if the ISP went out of business.
But ISPs are currently in favor, I think they can still buy address blocks.


>Why not just use private addresses?
>RFC 1918 specifies the following addresses for "private internets":
>        10.0.0.0        -   10.255.255.255
>        172.16.0.0      -   172.31.255.255
>        192.168.0.0     -   192.168.255.255
>
>Use those as examples and have fun!

There's some healthy advice :)

But I have to clear the air now. Yes, I am trying to avoid having to use
private addresses in examples where the syntax specifically needs public
ones, but I''m coming from a context of industrial-strength e-commerce
sites, not just router configuration.  I guess I picked a bad keyword for
summing that up (yep, routing).  What I failed to say is that the focus is
THE INTERNET, connecting from it to e-commerce sites.  The router is the
key (well, a key), but the whole ball of string makes Internet-routable
addresses inevitable. That's what it does.  But heck, no problem.  My
virtual server's IP address can be the very-nearly Internet-routable but
non-threatening 256.256.256.1.  How can that fail a risk test?

>
>In a more general answer to your question, safe data for examples
>is hard to come by in many cases, from names to addresses to almost
>anything else under the sun. If anyone has a database or listing that
>they'd like to donate to the community, I'm sure that we can find
>a home on the TECHWR-L site for it.

Good eye!

>
>Eric

Edward Bedinger
Edword Technical Communications Co.
Seattle, WA


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this were merely my opinion, I'd probably keep it to myself.
My employer is not responsible for my expressions.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=