[32751] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Qwest/forthelife.net rfc1918 goodness
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chance Whaley)
Sun Dec 10 22:24:53 2000
From: "Chance Whaley" <chance@dreamscope.com>
To: "Alex Pilosov" <alex@pilosoft.com>,
"Mark Mentovai" <mark-list@mentovai.com>
Cc: "Jade E. Deane" <jade.deane@hellonetwork.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 08:18:46 -0700
Message-ID: <JMEGLJJCJICKEIAEPOIMIEAKCAAA.chance@dreamscope.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSO.4.10.10012102213440.11117-100000@spider.pilosoft.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Its not Q with the 1918 addressing.
notice: 8 chi-edge-17.inet.qwest.net (205.171.20.154) 64 msec 64 msec 68
msec
edge = elvis has left the building
.chance
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
Alex Pilosov
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2000 8:16 PM
To: Mark Mentovai
Cc: Jade E. Deane; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Qwest/forthelife.net rfc1918 goodness
On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, Mark Mentovai wrote:
>
> I used to think that this was wrong also, and I would never build a
> network like that, but aside from making for ugly traceroutes, there's
> really nothing wrong with it. RFC 1918 doesn't address this issue
It, together with a martian ingress-filters break PMTU-D _IF_ any of the
links between these routers has MTU less than 1500. This topic pops up on
nanog every 4-6 months, but I doubt that it'll make home.net or qwest
change their addressing schemes.
--
Alex Pilosov | http://www.acecape.com/dsl
CTO - Acecape, Inc. | AceDSL:The best ADSL in Bell Atlantic area
325 W 38 St. Suite 1005 | (Stealth Marketing Works! :)
New York, NY 10018 |
