nanog mailing list archives
Re: RFC 1918
From: "Gary E. Miller" <gem () rellim com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 12:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
Yo Bennet! Sounds like circular reasoning: Path MTU discovery is broken beacuse poeple use RFC1918 addresses in routers. Since Path MTU discovery is broken then there is no need to follow RFC1918. RGDS GGRY On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Bennett Todd wrote:
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:00:14 -0400 From: Bennett Todd <bet () rahul net> To: nanog () merit edu Subject: Re: RFC 1918 If the only excuse for outlawing RFC 1918 router interface addresses is breaking path MTU discovery, then it seems to me that it should be perfectly legal to use RFC 1918 addresses for most router point-to-points; the only place where the Path MTU Discovery argument could possibly apply would be when a box routes between different interfaces onto links with different link MTUs. Considering how often Path MTU Discovery doesn't work, folks normally try pretty hard to avoid that circumstance anyway, so I'd expect a great many routers to be able to be assigned RFC 1918 addrs on their point-to-points with no operational problems. -Bennett
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Ave, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 gem () rellim com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676
Current thread:
- RFC 1918 Shawn McMahon (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 John Fraizer (Jul 14)
- Message not available
- Re: RFC 1918 Patrick W. Gilmore (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Bennett Todd (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Gary E. Miller (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Bennett Todd (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Patrick W. Gilmore (Jul 14)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: RFC 1918 Shawn McMahon (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Danny McPherson (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Steven M. Bellovin (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Bennett Todd (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Gary E. Miller (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Michael Shields (Jul 14)
- Re: RFC 1918 Greg A. Woods (Jul 14)