|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: RFC 1918
[SNIP] We had a similar discussion a long while ago (2 years?) on whether having RFC1918 addressed router interface could break Path MTU discovery. The general upshot is that the RFC specifically says that no packets with a reserved address in the header (source or destination) should leave the network in question. Also, the RFC says it is not at all unreasonable (but not required) for a network to filter packets with RFC1918 addresses in the source. (To prevent attacks and things like that.) So it is nearly impossible to stay 100% compliant and address router interfaces with RFC1918 addresses. (Unless you NAT or something.) All IIRC - I did not dig up the thread to double-check. TTFN, patrick P.S. Please do not yell at me about this, I am just summarizing a past thread I thought might be relevant. I got yelled at enough during the last thread where I argued that it was not such a bad thing 'cause it conserved space and stuff. Really, I only need 14 people to point out the sections of the RFC I missed before I get the point. :p
|