[34967] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: rfc 1918?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric A. Hall)
Thu Feb 22 18:21:14 2001
Message-ID: <3A95992A.8A2C597@ehsco.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:56:42 -0800
From: "Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: North America Network Operators Group Mailing List <nanog@merit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
John Hawkinson wrote:
> > No John, there are exactly zero reasons, good or otherwise
> I disagree, and believe that other reasonable people do so as well,
> and there is therefore argument over this issue.
Some people believe the earth is flat, so that issue is undecided?
hehe
RFC1918 addresses are not "free addresses" they are private-use ONLY
addresses which must not appear in public networking space. It cannot be
made much clearer than that. Science has spoken. RFC1918 addresses on
public interfaces are bad. Doesn't matter who disagrees with it or how
convenient it is to adopt. There is consensus on this issue.
"Stephen J. Wilcox" wrote:
> Altho Path MTU from RFC1918 P2P links will arrive and if you block them
> you'll find strange things occur on transfering data so you cant say
> nothing should come on 1918 space.
Exactly why they should be expunged from ISP backbones. What if an ICMP-DU
message had to go the other way, from ISP space out to the Internet?
--
Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
