|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: end2end? (was: RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...
[email protected] (Miquel van Smoorenburg) writes: > In article <[email protected]>, > Hire, Ejay <[email protected]> wrote: > >Using RFC 1918 space inside a network on transit segments that will be > >passing data but not generating it makes sense. > > Only if the MTUs on all interfaces of the routers are the same. > Otherwise you might generate a ICMP size exceeded message that > will never reach the sender, breaking Path MTU Discovery. Not to get involved in the RFC1918 for routers topic again, but the NAT discussions here got me wondering if much of this could be solved by having an edge router translate all of the internal router-network addresses to some constant, real address. Setting aside opinions about the brokenness of NAT, can anybody think of anything this would break? -----ScottG.
|