On 18-Feb-25 07:19, Michael Richardson wrote:
Tero Kivinen <kivinen@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Brian E Carpenter writes:
>> >>> For example, a typical home router may today be configured via "192.168.178.1" but not via "fe80::1%eth0"
>>
>> which only makes sense by using an RFC 1918 address, so I think
>> we have no choice. We could use 10.1.1.1, which is a bit more
>> obvious.
> Why would only RFC1918 addresses make sense there? I have seen home
Outside of the ten or so ancient IETFers that have public addresses behind
our home routers, it makes no sense to give any other kind of address for the
inside of the router. I'd even argue that it should be 192.168.1.1.
It's not actually an example, it's a real thing.
So is 192.168.178.1, in my FritzBox. I also have an ancient D-Link on my desk
that answers to 10.1.1.1.
Thinking about it last night, I thought we could change the text to read:
For example, a typical home router may today be configured via a well-known
private address [RFC1918] such as "192.168.178.1" but not via "fe80::1%eth0".
Brian
> routers using non RFC1918 addresses too, and they might even take
> IP-address from local DHCP server and use that.
> Changing text to use IPv4 addresses reserved for examples would be
> best.
I strongly disagree.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
