IP Tracing and IP Tracking (10.180.7.197)
Sorry. This IP address could not be resolved to its location.
10.180.7.197 - IP address is in private non-routable range.
Private IP Address Ranges Addressranges below are reserved by IANA for
private intranets, and not routable to the Internet.For additional
information, see RFC1918.
RFC1918
Network Working Group Y.
RekhterRequest for Comments: 1918 Cisco
SystemsObsoletes: 1627 , 1597
B. MoskowitzBCP: 5
Chrysler Corp.Category: Best Current Practice
D. Karrenberg
RIPE NCC
G. J. de Groot
RIPE NCC
E. Lear Silicon
Graphics, Inc.
February 1996 Address Allocation for Private Internets
Status of this Memo This document specifies an Internet Best Current
Practices for the Internet Community, and requests discussion and
suggestions for improvements. Distribution of thismemo is unlimited.
1 . Introduction For the purposes of this document, an enterprise
is an entity autonomously operating a network using TCP/IP and in
particular determining the addressing plan and address assignments
within that network. This document describes address allocation for
private internets. The allocation permits full network layer
connectivity among all hosts inside an enterprise as well as among
all public hosts of different enterprises. The cost of using private
internet address space is the potentially costly effort to renumber
hosts and networks between public and private. 2 . Motivation With
the proliferation of TCP/IP technology worldwide, including outside
the Internet itself, an increasing number of non-connected
enterprises use this technology and its addressing capabilities for
sole intra-enterprise communications, without any intention to ever
directly connect to other enterprises or the Internet itself. The
Internet has grown beyond anyone's expectations. Sustained
exponential growth continues to introduce new challenges. One
challenge is a concern within the community that globally unique
address space will be exhausted. A separate and far more pressing
concern is that the amount of routing overhead will grow beyond the
Rekhter, et al Best Current Practice [Page
1]
RFC 1918 Address Allocation for Private Internets February
1996 capabilities of Internet Service Providers. Efforts are in
progress within the community to find long term solutions to both of
these problems. Meanwhile it is necessary to revisit address
allocation procedures, and their impact on the Internet routing
system. To contain growth of routing overhead, an Internet Provider
obtains a block of address space from an address registry, and then
assigns to its customers addresses from within that block based on
each customer requirement. The result of this process is that routes
to many customers will be aggregated together, and will appear to
other providers as a single route [ RFC1518 ], [ RFC1519 ]. In order
for route aggregation to be effective, Internet providers encourage
customers joining their network to use the provider's block, and thus
renumber their computers. Such encouragement may become a requirement
in the future. With the current size of the Internet and its growth
rate it is no longer realistic to assume that by virtue of acquiring
globally unique IP addresses out of an Internet registry an
organization that acquires such addresses would have Internet-wide IP
connectivity once the organization gets connected to the Internet. To
the contrary, it is quite likely that when the organization would
connect to the Internet to achieve Internet-wide IP connectivity the
organization would need to change IP addresses(renumber) all of its
public hosts (hosts that require Internet-wide IP connectivity),
regardless of whether the addresses used by theorganization initially
were globally unique or not. It has been typical to assign globally
unique addresses to all hosts that use TCP/IP. In order to extendthe
life of the IPv4 address space, address registries are requiring more
justification than ever before, making it harder for organizations to
acquire additional address space [ RFC1466 ]. Hosts within
enterprises that use IP can be partitioned into three categories:
Category 1: hosts that do not require access to hosts in other
enterprises or the Internet at large; hosts within
this category may use IP addresses Enterprises "RICO"
--
President of The United States
Guy Ralph Perea Sr President of The United States
Weatherdata1046am0426 a Discussion Group of
Weatherdata<http://groups.google.com/group/weatherdata1046am0426>
USFMSC
http://www.cityfreq.com/ca/avalon/>
QUALIFY QICP
OCCUPS
http://www.occupationalinfo.org/02/025062010.html
goldlandabstracts; link check
own search engine - The United
States International Policies
http://apps.facebook.com/faceblogged/?uid=1340855784
http://lnk.ms/8d5gl aol
http://groups.google.com/group/united-states-of-american
http://cmt1.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/guyperea
http://twitter.com/ptusss Federal Communication
Commission<http://columbiabroadcast.spaces.live.com/>
Ambassador Chevy Chase; Kevin Corcran; Jack Nickolas; Cher; Shirley Temple
Black; Liza Minnille; Ansari; Ernest Tascoe; Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
Agent Jodie Foster; Department of Veterans Affairs Director George H.W. Bush
Title 22 USCS section 1928 (b) The e-mail
transmission may contain legally privileged information that
is intended only for the individual or entity recipient, you are hereby,
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the
contents of this E-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
E-mail transmission in error, please reply to the sender, so arrangements
can be made for proper delivery. Title 42
USCS section 192 etseq Margie Paxton Chief of Childrens Bureau
Director of The United States Department of Human Services; Defendant
Article IV General Provisions Section 2
(Supreme Law of The Land) The Constitution of The United States "Any thing
in The Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary Notwithstanding"
Contrary to Law (of an act or omission) illegal;
https://plus.google.com/100487463984952448443
https://twitter.com/presidentus1
No comments:
Post a Comment