North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Severe Response Degradation
Andrew Brown writes: > Daniel Senie writes: > >Considering the large chunk of 24/8 they have, I can't imagine why they > >had to use RFC 1918 addresses throughout their infrastructure. When I > >raised issues about this (just after getting a T1 to their network), > >they had no answers other than that since they chose an MTU of 1500 > >bytes for all their links, they didn't think path MTU discovery would be > >an issue. > > well then, they're obviously clueless. Hasn't this come up here before? I'm too lazy to go check the archive, but I seem to remember a discussion of this topic. IIRC, the reason/excuse given (lame or not) was that they use equipment that does not deal well/at all with CIDR or VLSM or somesuch. Or am I thinking of someone else? Not that I recall it being a widely accepted reason here. :-) --Jeff ObRandy: Cynical response regarding people simply complaining about that which they do not fully understand omitted.