[30065] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RFC 1918
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bennett Todd)
Fri Jul 14 15:03:36 2000
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:00:14 -0400
From: Bennett Todd <bet@rahul.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20000714150014.G19521@oven.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3xoW37o/FfUZJwQG"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20000714142656.033f8340@ianai.net>; from patrick@ianai.net on Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 02:33:18PM -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--3xoW37o/FfUZJwQG
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
If the only excuse for outlawing RFC 1918 router interface
addresses is breaking path MTU discovery, then it seems to me
that it should be perfectly legal to use RFC 1918 addresses for
most router point-to-points; the only place where the Path MTU
Discovery argument could possibly apply would be when a box routes
between different interfaces onto links with different link MTUs.
Considering how often Path MTU Discovery doesn't work, folks
normally try pretty hard to avoid that circumstance anyway, so I'd
expect a great many routers to be able to be assigned RFC 1918 addrs
on their point-to-points with no operational problems.
-Bennett
--3xoW37o/FfUZJwQG
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE5b2M9L6KAps40sTYRAgNVAJwKgJTBbSSW2F4VTs52xnB3tydAEwCfRFSW
W+tk+fLIEdmAYdfC8Qs7P3I=
=biME
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--3xoW37o/FfUZJwQG--
