[3645] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: totd
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert Bowman)
Fri Aug 2 17:23:48 1996
From: Robert Bowman <rob@elite.exodus.net>
To: bnite@tremere.ios.com (Golan Ben-Oni)
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 07:38:02 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.95.960802002721.9451A-100000@tremere.ios.com> from "Golan Ben-Oni" at Aug 2, 96 00:35:55 am
The biggest problem with using non-routable ip addresses on numbered interfaces
whether point to point or frame or atm or whatever, is that you lose outside
connectivity from those interfaces. We tried this, but the essential
traceroutes from our core routes are too important when debugging BGP
problems to the outside.
Robert Bowman
Exodus Communications Inc.
>
> On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, Christian Nielsen wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, Avi Freedman wrote:
> >
> > > > 10 arpanet^255.255.2 (10.255.255.2) 178 ms 228 ms 234 ms
> > >
> > > Looks like someone wanted to assign a serial network and didn't have time
> > > to look at their internal network assignment maps... I advise 'ip unn'
> > > for times like that :)
> >
> > I think that it would be "a good thing" for companies to start using
> > the ips in RFC 1918 for internal ips on Serial Interfaces. This way, you are
> > able to still reach Serial interfaces via ips where ip unn you can't.
>
> Yes, this is the primary reason why we don't use unn interfaces.
>
> > But, to do so, you would have to have filters on. If not it could cause
> > problems.
>
> Indeed .. Even tho we filter these from being announced, we still get
> occassional letters from people who assume we are.
>
> - Golan
>
