home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: comma.rhein.de!serpens!not-for-mail
- From: mlelstv@serpens.rhein.de (Michael van Elst)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.audio
- Subject: Re: IP aliasing
- Date: 20 Feb 1996 22:57:35 +0100
- Organization: dis-
- Message-ID: <4gdg4f$ib8@serpens.rhein.de>
- References: <4farkg$2pc@csusac.ecs.csus.edu> <4g7qtd$d0@serpens.rhein.de> <4g99va$2b9@news.jhu.edu> <4gc6i2$fm1@serpens.rhein.de> <4gcv49$fvf@news.jhu.edu>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: serpens.rhein.de
-
- robodude@deanwong.rad.jhu.edu (Zsolt Szabo) writes:
-
- >In article <4gc6i2$fm1@serpens.rhein.de>,
- >Michael van Elst <mlelstv@serpens.rhein.de> wrote:
-
- >>No. A subnet is no solution because a subnet has to be routed. The original
- >>poster explicitely requested ip aliasing _so that the provider does not
- >>have to route another ip address_.
-
- >Not so. Subnets are completely transparent from the provider's
- >perspective.
-
- This is plain _wrong_.
-
- >That's the whole point of a subnet--having a single address
- >class which you can then break up as you like.
-
- Yes, _class_. But what happens when you have a _single address_
- like the original poster ?
-
- >Obviously you have to
- >start off with at least a C class address.
-
- Again wrong.
-
- >commercial providers do themselves--not IP aliasing (which wouldn't even
- >work if you wanted to address each system separately).
-
- It does work in a limited way.
-
- --
- Michael van Elst
-
- Internet: mlelstv@serpens.rhein.de
- "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
-