[30068] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RFC 1918
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gary E. Miller)
Fri Jul 14 15:41:19 2000
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 12:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Gary E. Miller" <gem@rellim.com>
Reply-To: gary miller <gem@rellim.com>
To: Bennett Todd <bet@rahul.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20000714150014.G19521@oven.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007141236200.16371-100000@ns1.aplatform.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Yo Bennet!
Sounds like circular reasoning:
Path MTU discovery is broken beacuse poeple use RFC1918 addresses in routers.
Since Path MTU discovery is broken then there is no need to follow RFC1918.
RGDS
GGRY
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Bennett Todd wrote:
> Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:00:14 -0400
> From: Bennett Todd <bet@rahul.net>
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: RFC 1918
>
> 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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Ave, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701
gem@rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676
