-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
- --On Wednesday, December 04, 2002 11:43:20 +0100 Fredrik Widell
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> But I agree, why not just give adresses to hosts asking for adresses
> via dhcp? the netmask usually is /24 anyhow, so if a user needs more
> adresses they will receive more adresses, and if they are connected via a
> LAN they can talk to each other aswell.
I agree with Fredrik. This is a good way to empower users. And I want that
to happen, for a multitude of reasons, one significant being that I believe
that empowered users are likely to buy more Internet capacity, keeping all
of us busy.
One *might* assign some kind of limit per subscriber, to prevent from DoS
by snarfing all leases. This, I believe, is already being done, by
On a related note -- Regardless of the issues I have with some of the
things I've heard B2 does (for example altering a DHCP server so it
deliberately denies renewal in favour of another address, and the debacle
with the Digisip-issued Cisco ATA boxes being given RFC1918 leases) I find
that the basic structure and service level both are sound -- a rôle model
for a consumer broadband operation.
Måns Nilsson Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC MN1334-RIPE
We're sysadmins. To us, data is a protocol-overhead.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (OpenBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----