[33107] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andrew Brown)
Fri Dec 29 13:55:26 2000
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 13:48:02 -0500
From: Andrew Brown <twofsonet@graffiti.com>
To: "Daniel L. Golding" <dan@netrail.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20001229134801.B275@noc.untraceable.net>
Reply-To: Andrew Brown <atatat@atatdot.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0012291336290.45669-100000@courier.netrail.net>; from dan@netrail.net on Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 01:38:45PM -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>This is one of the benchmarks of cluelessness. The other is that the
>addresses don't have reverse DNS. As has been said here, many times,
>using RFC1918 addresses on interfaces, breaks Path MTU discovery, due to
>martians filters on network boundaries.
they might actually have reverse dns set up for those addresses, but
i, of course, have no idea what server to ask about it. :)
--
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org * "ah! i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown) that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com * "information is power -- share the wealth."
