[32752] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Qwest/forthelife.net rfc1918 goodness
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jlewis@lewis.org)
Mon Dec 11 00:29:33 2000
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 00:27:20 -0500 (EST)
From: jlewis@lewis.org
To: Mark Mentovai <mark-list@mentovai.com>
Cc: "Jade E. Deane" <jade.deane@hellonetwork.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0012102139490.2558-100000@pine.ggn.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10012110021540.893-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
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 directly, but
> it's pretty clear that the routers in question don't require network access
> beyond the scope of their enterprise, so they are candidates for being
> assigned addresses out of private space. The general public doesn't need to
There are a few other points. Routers tend to have multiple interfaces.
Just because a router sends packets in a traceroute with a private IP
source address doesn't mean the router isn't accessible from the internet
via a public address on some other interface...just that interface with
that address isn't, and most likely doesn't need to be. Some routers
neatly accomodate this by allowing you to specify the IP address they'll
use for all locally sourced packets.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lewis *jlewis@lewis.org*| I route
System Administrator | therefore you are
Atlantic Net |
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
