North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: 10.0.0
- From: John Hawkinson
- Date: Sat May 31 09:52:55 1997
> I've noted several providers, including a couple of better-known ones,
> using RFC1597 addresses internally. While not a Really Optimal Solution, it
> does work, and if you find yourself with only a couple of class C's to work
> with.. I'd probably rather preserve them for my customers, and go with
> whatever I had to internally, as long as packets still got from A to B.
>
> The only services that should be affected by the use of such "bogus"
> addresses will be traceroute and any routing information passed by the
> device.
Unfortunately that's not quite true.
There are a variety of services which rely on messages received from
intermediate hops that would break if the the sending host happened
to filter out RFC1918 addresses and a part of the network
were using them.
Probably the best example is Path MTU Discovery.
--jhawk
|
