BIND 9.2.1 and TCP

[Kevin Darcy]

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