North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Bogon list
In the referenced message, Sean M. Doran said: > Basically, arguing that the routing system should carry around > even more information is backwards. It should carry less. > If IXes need numbers at all (why???) then use RFC 1918 addresses > and choose one of the approaches above to deal with questions > about why 1918 addresses result in "messy traceroutes." > > Fewer routes, less address consumption, tastes great, less filling. > > Sean. Do you: 1) Not believe in PMTU-D 2) Not believe in filtering RFC1918 sourced traffic at enterprise boundaries (of which an exchange would be a boundary) 3) Not believe packet-passing devices have legitimate needs in contacting hosts, even if hosts don't have legitimate needs for contacting them? (a superset of 1, above) 4) All or some of the above? I would love if RFC1918 were adhered to such that L3 packet-passing devices either weren't numbered out of those blocks, or allowed what juniper allows with the ability to select the ip address with which packets sourced by the L3 packet-passing device sent traffic (other than primary ip on destination interface). The latter would permit intra-enterprise use of RFC1918 addresses, while still conforming with RFC1918. Failing that, use of RFC1918 addresses in places where inter-provider packets get RFC1918 sources, is a violation of RFC1918. In any event, exchanges are inter-enterprise, and shouldn't be RFC1918.
|