From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

According to Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>:

When the internet was first conceived they needed to define source and >>destination address fields big enough to address many more hosts than would >>ever be connected to the net. So they chose 8 bits.

I don't think so. For example extremely well known IP addresses such as >192.168.0.1 cannot be expressed in just 8 bits.

He's probably thinking of the Arpanet, which had six bit IMP numbers and
two bit host numbers on each IMP. That was NCP, the predecessor to TCP/IP.

192.168.0.1 is an IPv4 address, 32 bits. The IPv4 addresses ran out around
the turn of the millenium, and much larger IPv6 were supposed to replace
them. But for reasons far removed from railroads, the transition to IPv6
was not smooth and we're still using both v4 an v6 addresses and will be
for the forseeable future.
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

According to Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>:

When the internet was first conceived they needed to define source and
destination address fields big enough to address many more hosts than would >>> ever be connected to the net. So they chose 8 bits.

I don't think so. For example extremely well known IP addresses such as
192.168.0.1 cannot be expressed in just 8 bits.

He's probably thinking of the Arpanet, which had six bit IMP numbers and
two bit host numbers on each IMP. That was NCP, the predecessor to TCP/IP.

ThatrCOs exactly it. ItrCOs a well known meme that was used around the time IPv6 (and v7, v8 and v9) were being developed to show how easy it is to underestimate progress.

192.168.0.1 is an IPv4 address, 32 bits. The IPv4 addresses ran out around the turn of the millenium, and much larger IPv6 were supposed to replace them. But for reasons far removed from railroads, the transition to IPv6
was not smooth and we're still using both v4 an v6 addresses and will be
for the forseeable future.

Indeed - BTDT but they were out of T-shirts.

Sam
--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

In message <10hhnuu$2330$1@gal.iecc.com>, at 18:46:54 on Fri, 12 Dec
2025, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> remarked:

According to Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>:

When the internet was first conceived they needed to define source and >>>destination address fields big enough to address many more hosts than would >>>ever be connected to the net. So they chose 8 bits.

I don't think so. For example extremely well known IP addresses such as >>192.168.0.1 cannot be expressed in just 8 bits.

He's probably thinking of the Arpanet, which had six bit IMP numbers and
two bit host numbers on each IMP. That was NCP, the predecessor to TCP/IP.

192.168.0.1 is an IPv4 address, 32 bits. The IPv4 addresses ran out around >the turn of the millenium,

No they didn't. That's when we ran out of Class-A/B/C addresses.

There were still plenty of individual IPv4 addresses available in the
2010's, a period when I was employed as RIPE-NCC's outreach person to
persuade the world to switch to IPv6. But in the absence of a famine of
IPv4 addresses (partly due to carrier-grade NAT) the overwhelming
response was "Go away, until this is a real problem".

and much larger IPv6 were supposed to replace them. But for reasons
far removed from railroads, the transition to IPv6 was not smooth and
we're still using both v4 an v6 addresses and will be for the
forseeable future.

--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

According to <boltar@caprica.universe>:

I'd actual venture that for IP6 they've overdone it. 128 bits/16 bytes seems >to have annoyed a lot of network admins as a large part of their job is using >raw IP numbers. ...

Those network admins are totally missing the point. In IPv6, the address space is so large that a sensible admin gives every customer a giant chunk of the same size, greatly easing the job. Every network is a /64, every customer
gets a /56 or /48 for their internal use. Compare that to IPv4 where they
have to dole out the individual addresses one or two at a time these days.
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

According to Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>:

In message <10hhnuu$2330$1@gal.iecc.com>, at 18:46:54 on Fri, 12 Dec
2025, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> remarked:

According to Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>:

When the internet was first conceived they needed to define source and >>>>destination address fields big enough to address many more hosts than would >>>>ever be connected to the net. So they chose 8 bits.

I don't think so. For example extremely well known IP addresses such as >>>192.168.0.1 cannot be expressed in just 8 bits.

He's probably thinking of the Arpanet, which had six bit IMP numbers and >>two bit host numbers on each IMP. That was NCP, the predecessor to TCP/IP. >>
192.168.0.1 is an IPv4 address, 32 bits. The IPv4 addresses ran out around >>the turn of the millenium,

No they didn't. That's when we ran out of Class-A/B/C addresses.

There were still plenty of individual IPv4 addresses available in the >2010's, a period when I was employed as RIPE-NCC's outreach person ...

Indeed, They invented CIDR to allow finer division of the IPv4 space allocations when the original scheme ran out. That's been dismayingly
effective -- I see that about a month ago the set of IPv4 routes seen
by backbone routers exceeded a million. It's somewhat smaller when
overlapping and adjacent routes are merged, but the routers still
need huge expensive specialized memories to move packets at speed.

persuade the world to switch to IPv6. But in the absence of a famine of
IPv4 addresses (partly due to carrier-grade NAT) ...

Partly that but I think more CIDR and the ability to sell off underused
chunks IPv4 address space for a great deal of money. For example, MIT
in Massachusetts originally had 18/8, with 16 million addresses, but
in 2019 renumbered down into 18.0/11, with 2 million, and sold off the other
14 million to AWS.
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

On Sat, 13 Dec 2025 20:19:26 -0000 (UTC)
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> gabbled:

According to <boltar@caprica.universe>:

I'd actual venture that for IP6 they've overdone it. 128 bits/16 bytes seems >>to have annoyed a lot of network admins as a large part of their job is using

raw IP numbers. ...

Those network admins are totally missing the point. In IPv6, the address space

They're the ones doing the job, I'll put their opinions top of the list.

is so large that a sensible admin gives every customer a giant chunk of the >same size, greatly easing the job. Every network is a /64, every customer >gets a /56 or /48 for their internal use. Compare that to IPv4 where they >have to dole out the individual addresses one or two at a time these days.

There's a reason almost no company uses IP6 for their internal networks.
Other than being a pain to set up - 1 hop link local addresses are next to useless and good luck setting up internally routable IP6 addresses - no company wants its internal network exposed to the public internet so the whole unique address for every machine raison d'etre of IP6 becomes utterly irrelevant.
IP4 NAT works nicely for most places, its a mature technology and is an extra layer of protection behind the firewall and any external IP6 requirements can be met with an IP6 <-> IP4 translation layer at the door.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

In message <10hkhg6$1h1b$1@gal.iecc.com>, at 20:15:02 on Sat, 13 Dec
2025, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> remarked:

192.168.0.1 is an IPv4 address, 32 bits. The IPv4 addresses ran out around >>>the turn of the millenium,

No they didn't. That's when we ran out of Class-A/B/C addresses.

There were still plenty of individual IPv4 addresses available in the >>2010's, a period when I was employed as RIPE-NCC's outreach person ...

Indeed, They invented CIDR to allow finer division of the IPv4 space >allocations when the original scheme ran out. That's been dismayingly >effective -- I see that about a month ago the set of IPv4 routes seen
by backbone routers exceeded a million. It's somewhat smaller when >overlapping and adjacent routes are merged, but the routers still
need huge expensive specialized memories to move packets at speed.

persuade the world to switch to IPv6. But in the absence of a famine of >>IPv4 addresses (partly due to carrier-grade NAT) ...

Partly that but I think more CIDR

I disagree, having worked on the technical side of things, the ability
of say BT in the UK to roll out ten million broadband connections was
mainly due to CGN.

And actually I'll mention consumers with NAT as well. Back in the day
Demon Internet used to give all retail customers sixteen IP addresses
whether they wanted them or not. Few of them needed more than about
three. Nowadays, if I look round the house here I've got probably
fifty** appliances connected to The Internet, but just one public IP
address.

No wonder Virgin's rather ancient cable-Internet router tends to need
rebooting about once a week!

and the ability to sell off underused chunks IPv4 address space for a
great deal of money. For example, MIT in Massachusetts originally had
18/8, with 16 million addresses, but in 2019 renumbered down into
18.0/11, with 2 million, and sold off the other 14 million to AWS.

The whole "MIT has more IP addresses than the whole of China" thing
plagued Internet politics for a decade, and was the main driver for the
ITU seeking to oust the RIRs and allocate addresses themselves. I don't
think they really need 2 million now. As for the money, it's a drop in
the ocean compared to all the other costs of running ISPs (around $500
billion annually)

** Computers, tablets, TVs, printers, doorbell cameras, Alexa's,
smartphones, VoIP, central heating controllers, and even the
dishwasher.
--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2025 20:19:26 -0000 (UTC)
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> gabbled:

According to <boltar@caprica.universe>:

I'd actual venture that for IP6 they've overdone it. 128 bits/16 bytes seems
to have annoyed a lot of network admins as a large part of their job is using

raw IP numbers. ...

Those network admins are totally missing the point. In IPv6, the address space

They're the ones doing the job, I'll put their opinions top of the list.

is so large that a sensible admin gives every customer a giant chunk of the >> same size, greatly easing the job. Every network is a /64, every customer >> gets a /56 or /48 for their internal use. Compare that to IPv4 where they >> have to dole out the individual addresses one or two at a time these days.

There's a reason almost no company uses IP6 for their internal networks. Other than being a pain to set up - 1 hop link local addresses are next to useless and good luck setting up internally routable IP6 addresses - no company
wants its internal network exposed to the public internet so the whole unique
address for every machine raison d'etre of IP6 becomes utterly irrelevant. IP4 NAT works nicely for most places, its a mature technology and is an extra
layer of protection behind the firewall and any external IP6 requirements can be met with an IP6 <-> IP4 translation layer at the door.

NAT is not a substitute for a firewall. The protection it is alleged to
give is perhaps protection against staff who donrCOt know what they are
doing.

My domestic ISP provides me with IPv6 as well as IPv4. My humble domestic router provides all the necessary firewalling. ThererCOs no need for IPv6
NAT.

It may come as a surprise that many outfits have routeable IPv4 addresses
on their internal machines. These are organisations that were very early adopters of IPv4 and got large allocations before the concept of address exhaustion was ever a thing.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

In message <10hlutn$shmn$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:10:15 on Sun, 14 Dec
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:

On Sat, 13 Dec 2025 20:19:26 -0000 (UTC)
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> gabbled:

According to <boltar@caprica.universe>:

I'd actual venture that for IP6 they've overdone it. 128 bits/16 bytes seems >>>to have annoyed a lot of network admins as a large part of their job
is using

raw IP numbers. ...

Those network admins are totally missing the point. In IPv6, the
address space

They're the ones doing the job, I'll put their opinions top of the list.

is so large that a sensible admin gives every customer a giant chunk of the >>same size, greatly easing the job. Every network is a /64, every customer >>gets a /56 or /48 for their internal use. Compare that to IPv4 where they >>have to dole out the individual addresses one or two at a time these days.

There's a reason almost no company uses IP6 for their internal networks.

I have news for you. Company internal networks aren't the only users of
IP Addresses.

Trivial example: Five and a half billion people with a mobile phone.

Other than being a pain to set up - 1 hop link local addresses are next to >useless and good luck setting up internally routable IP6 addresses - no company
wants its internal network exposed to the public internet so the whole unique >address for every machine raison d'etre of IP6 becomes utterly irrelevant. >IP4 NAT works nicely for most places, its a mature technology and is an extra >layer of protection behind the firewall and any external IP6 requirements can >be met with an IP6 <-> IP4 translation layer at the door.

--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

In message <10hm2ph$u19v$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:16:18 on Sun, 14 Dec
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

It may come as a surprise that many outfits have routeable IPv4 addresses
on their internal machines. These are organisations that were very early >adopters of IPv4 and got large allocations before the concept of address >exhaustion was ever a thing.

Not just that sort of outfit, but anyone running their own web or mail
server.

I did that for a long time, at home, although now that commercial ISPs
provide in particular email servers that don't fall over every couple of
days, or have hour-long backlogs**, I have delegated it.

** One ISP I was a customer of in the mid-90's had an almost 24hr queue
on its Usenet server. Now I can post and collect via individual.net
(apparently not for much longer) in milliseconds.
--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 10:16:18 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> gabbled:

<boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:

There's a reason almost no company uses IP6 for their internal networks.
Other than being a pain to set up - 1 hop link local addresses are next to >> useless and good luck setting up internally routable IP6 addresses - no >company
wants its internal network exposed to the public internet so the whole >unique
address for every machine raison d'etre of IP6 becomes utterly irrelevant. >> IP4 NAT works nicely for most places, its a mature technology and is an >extra
layer of protection behind the firewall and any external IP6 requirements can

be met with an IP6 <-> IP4 translation layer at the door.

NAT is not a substitute for a firewall. The protection it is alleged to

Never said it was, but its an extra roadblock for someone wanting to hack
into the internal network.

give is perhaps protection against staff who donrCOt know what they are >doing.

My domestic ISP provides me with IPv6 as well as IPv4. My humble domestic >router provides all the necessary firewalling. ThererCOs no need for IPv6 >NAT.

No there isn't. But there is very much a need not to have internal company machines exposed to the public internet so whether or not they have routable globally unique IP6 addresses is an irrelevance.

It may come as a surprise that many outfits have routeable IPv4 addresses
on their internal machines. These are organisations that were very early

Why would that come as a surprise? I already stated that link local IP6 addresses are non routable making them useless for internal corporate
routing so you'll have to either assign "proper" ip6 addresses or save yourself the hassle and just use IP4.

adopters of IPv4 and got large allocations before the concept of address >exhaustion was ever a thing.

Yes, I know.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 13:01:13 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:

In message <10hlutn$shmn$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:10:15 on Sun, 14 Dec
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:

There's a reason almost no company uses IP6 for their internal networks.

I have news for you. Company internal networks aren't the only users of
IP Addresses.

Trivial example: Five and a half billion people with a mobile phone.

So what? The phone company can translate addresses any way it wants as all
the phones are effectively inside a corporate network when using 4/5G. And
when using wifi they'll get whatever the wifi router gives them.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

In message <10hml49$8bov$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:29:14 on Sun, 14 Dec
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 13:01:13 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:

In message <10hlutn$shmn$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:10:15 on Sun, 14 Dec >>2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:

There's a reason almost no company uses IP6 for their internal networks.

I have news for you. Company internal networks aren't the only users
of IP Addresses.

Trivial example: Five and a half billion people with a mobile phone.

So what?

Needs lots of IP Addresses.

The phone company can translate addresses any way it wants as all
the phones are effectively inside a corporate network when using 4/5G.

Nope, never heard of roaming on other people's networks?

And when using wifi they'll get whatever the wifi router gives them.

About as relevant as saying what a lovely colour the case is.
--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <10hml49$8bov$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:29:14 on Sun, 14 Dec
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 13:01:13 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:

In message <10hlutn$shmn$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:10:15 on Sun, 14 Dec
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:

There's a reason almost no company uses IP6 for their internal networks. >>>

I have news for you. Company internal networks aren't the only users
of IP Addresses.

Trivial example: Five and a half billion people with a mobile phone.

So what?

Needs lots of IP Addresses.

The phone company can translate addresses any way it wants as all
the phones are effectively inside a corporate network when using 4/5G.

Nope, never heard of roaming on other people's networks?

As an aside to this, IrCOm finding now that when IrCOm roaming (Vodafone) I appear to still be in the UK, as shown by the numerous websites that
attempt to geolocate me. Essentially I appear to be on a VPN back to the
UK. Even the BBC thinks IrCOm in the UK.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

In message <10hn33t$1c6p9$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:27:57 on Sun, 14 Dec
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

There's a reason almost no company uses IP6 for their internal networks. >>>>

I have news for you. Company internal networks aren't the only users
of IP Addresses.

Trivial example: Five and a half billion people with a mobile phone.

So what?

Needs lots of IP Addresses.

The phone company can translate addresses any way it wants as all
the phones are effectively inside a corporate network when using 4/5G.

Nope, never heard of roaming on other people's networks?

As an aside to this, IrCOm finding now that when IrCOm roaming (Vodafone) I >appear to still be in the UK, as shown by the numerous websites that
attempt to geolocate me. Essentially I appear to be on a VPN back to the
UK. Even the BBC thinks IrCOm in the UK.

That makes sense, the overseas network tunnelling your traffic to the
UK, and it breaking out onto the public Internet from a Vodafone UK
gateway. That way the roamed-on network has a lot less thinking to do,
and less traffic on its own gateways.
--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 18:46:04 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:

In message <10hml49$8bov$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:29:14 on Sun, 14 Dec
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 13:01:13 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:

In message <10hlutn$shmn$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:10:15 on Sun, 14 Dec >>>2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:

There's a reason almost no company uses IP6 for their internal networks. >>>

I have news for you. Company internal networks aren't the only users
of IP Addresses.

Trivial example: Five and a half billion people with a mobile phone.

So what?

Needs lots of IP Addresses.

The phone company can translate addresses any way it wants as all
the phones are effectively inside a corporate network when using 4/5G.

Nope, never heard of roaming on other people's networks?

And? They just give it another internal IP address. Whats the problem?

And when using wifi they'll get whatever the wifi router gives them.

About as relevant as saying what a lovely colour the case is.

The relevancy is that an IP4 address from a router is internal only yet the phone still works even with calls. Who knew?

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

In message <10honfe$b59k$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:21:34 on Mon, 15 Dec
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 18:46:04 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:

In message <10hml49$8bov$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:29:14 on Sun, 14 Dec >>2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 13:01:13 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:

In message <10hlutn$shmn$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:10:15 on Sun, 14
Dec 2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:

There's a reason almost no company uses IP6 for their internal networks. >>>>

I have news for you. Company internal networks aren't the only users >>>>of IP Addresses.

Trivial example: Five and a half billion people with a mobile phone.

So what?

Needs lots of IP Addresses.

The phone company can translate addresses any way it wants as all
the phones are effectively inside a corporate network when using 4/5G.

Nope, never heard of roaming on other people's networks?

And? They just give it another internal IP address. Whats the problem?

And when using wifi they'll get whatever the wifi router gives them.

About as relevant as saying what a lovely colour the case is.

The relevancy is that an IP4 address from a router is internal only yet the >phone still works even with calls. Who knew?

I won't even attempt to try polishing the turd which is that posting.
--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 10:35:55 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:

In message <10honfe$b59k$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:21:34 on Mon, 15 Dec
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 18:46:04 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:

In message <10hml49$8bov$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:29:14 on Sun, 14 Dec >>>2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2025 13:01:13 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:

In message <10hlutn$shmn$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:10:15 on Sun, 14 >>>>>Dec 2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:

There's a reason almost no company uses IP6 for their internal networks. >>>>>

I have news for you. Company internal networks aren't the only users >>>>>of IP Addresses.

Trivial example: Five and a half billion people with a mobile phone.

So what?

Needs lots of IP Addresses.

The phone company can translate addresses any way it wants as all
the phones are effectively inside a corporate network when using 4/5G.

Nope, never heard of roaming on other people's networks?

And? They just give it another internal IP address. Whats the problem?

And when using wifi they'll get whatever the wifi router gives them.

About as relevant as saying what a lovely colour the case is.

The relevancy is that an IP4 address from a router is internal only yet the >>phone still works even with calls. Who knew?

I won't even attempt to try polishing the turd which is that posting.

Because its a fact and you have no way in which to save face.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

In message <10hpc08$c0vf$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:11:52 on Mon, 15 Dec
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:

I have news for you. Company internal networks aren't the only >>>>>>users of IP Addresses.

Trivial example: Five and a half billion people with a mobile phone. >>>>>

So what?

Needs lots of IP Addresses.

The phone company can translate addresses any way it wants as all
the phones are effectively inside a corporate network when using 4/5G. >>>>

Nope, never heard of roaming on other people's networks?

And? They just give it another internal IP address. Whats the problem?

And when using wifi they'll get whatever the wifi router gives them.

About as relevant as saying what a lovely colour the case is.

The relevancy is that an IP4 address from a router is internal only yet the >>>phone still works even with calls. Who knew?

I won't even attempt to try polishing the turd which is that posting.

Because its a fact and you have no way in which to save face.

Bald assertion like won't work, I'm afraid.
--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 16:37:23 +0000
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:

In message <10hpc08$c0vf$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:11:52 on Mon, 15 Dec
2025, boltar@caprica.universe remarked:

I have news for you. Company internal networks aren't the only >>>>>>>users of IP Addresses.

Trivial example: Five and a half billion people with a mobile phone. >>>>>>

So what?

Needs lots of IP Addresses.

The phone company can translate addresses any way it wants as all >>>>>>the phones are effectively inside a corporate network when using 4/5G. >>>>>

Nope, never heard of roaming on other people's networks?

And? They just give it another internal IP address. Whats the problem?

And when using wifi they'll get whatever the wifi router gives them. >>>>>

About as relevant as saying what a lovely colour the case is.

The relevancy is that an IP4 address from a router is internal only yet the >>>>phone still works even with calls. Who knew?

I won't even attempt to try polishing the turd which is that posting.

Because its a fact and you have no way in which to save face.

Bald assertion like won't work, I'm afraid.

Like whatever dude.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

According to Certes <Certes@example.org>:

192.168.*.* isn't memorable, for example. Whereas 555, the USA code for
directory enquiries, is.

Not all that memorable, as the USA code for directory enquiries is 411. >555-nnnn is rarely assigned but recommended for use in fictional works.
Of course, 192 was for many years the UK code for directory enquiries.

In most places 411 was for local directory assistance, 555-1212 for
long distance (trunk calls) within the area code, and NXX-555-1212
for other areas. Thirty years ago there was a plan to assign 555-XXXX
as natioanwide local-ish numbesrs for businesses, but it never
actually happened.

Of course these days, directory, what's that? My small local phone
company still publishes a phone book, and I'm in it, but I doubt they
will much longer.
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

According to Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>:

Personalised plates tend to be the ones that people transfer the numbers
and letters from vehicle to vehicle because they hold an attachment to them >for various reasons.

My license plate says IPV4.

No relation to a guy on the other side of town who has TCP-IP.
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.transport.london

In message <10ji2r1$vda$1@gal.iecc.com>, at 04:25:05 on Tue, 6 Jan 2026,
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> remarked:

According to Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>:

Personalised plates tend to be the ones that people transfer the numbers >>and letters from vehicle to vehicle because they hold an attachment to them >>for various reasons.

My license plate says IPV4.

No relation to a guy on the other side of town who has TCP-IP.

The USA is slightly different because in some states at least you can
have anything you like, whereas in the UK the plates are to a strict
format and with a few exceptions are issued on a first-come-first-served basis. Hence the active aftermarket.
--
Roland Perry
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2