North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Bogon list
Indeed, and that is one of the reasons why I agree IXPs and P2P should not use RFC1918 My point was merely that using RFC1918 on links does not break P-MTU, whether it should be used or not was another question... Steve On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Daniel Senie wrote: > > At 05:26 AM 6/7/02, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: > > > >On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Stephen Griffin wrote: > > > > > > > > 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 > > > >RFC1918 does not break path-mtu, filtering it does tho.. > > Though many people either miss the point or don't care, RFC 1918 is also > BCP 5. Last I checked, BCP stood for "Best Current Practice." So you've got > a BCP document saying the addresses listed in RFC 1918 should not be > present on the public network. So yes, filtering is required by RFC 1918, > and so use of the private IP address blocks does break Path MTU discovery. > Some folks find the private address space specified in RFC 1918 convenient, > but ignore the stipulations on use contained in the same document. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Daniel Senie [email protected] > Amaranth Networks Inc. http://www.amaranth.com > >
|