Re: Private networks and home.{net|com}

[bmah () CA SANDIA GOV (Bruce A. Mah)]

If memory serves me right, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
> So we're looking for a little odd something, and we do a simple traceroute,
> and what do we see? What the heck are those IP addresses at hops 15, 20, and
> 21? I thought that those weren't supposed to be passed, and there are three
> of them in one traceroute. This kind of destroys the meaning of the concept
> of a "private network," especially if insane numbers like these are going to
> show up in routing tables. Am I just not understanding something here?

As was just recently discussed in the "Strange traceroute" thread here,
@Home uses 10/8 addresses on their internal links.  They don't show up
in the default-free routing tables.

It's bad for things like traceroute, because you'll never see the ICMP
error packets if you filter out packets from private-use addresses.  On
the other hand, the average @Home user isn't going to notice this at
all, since they don't care about the IP addresses of their ISP's
routers.

I suspect they do this in an attempt to make their internal routers
less vulnerable to attack.

Bruce.

<HR NOSHADE>
<UL>
<LI>application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
</UL>