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