[41471] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: end2end? (was: RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Miquel van Smoorenburg)
Mon Sep 10 16:33:03 2001
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: miquels@cistron-office.nl (Miquel van Smoorenburg)
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 20:31:03 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <9nj7u7$cuc$1@ncc1701.cistron.net>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@cistron.nl
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
In article <F5F3FBBFC94DD4118E4500D0B74A095F013E70E1@EMAIL2>,
Hire, Ejay <Ejay.Hire@Broadslate.net> wrote:
>Using RFC 1918 space inside a network on transit segments that will be
>passing data but not generating it makes sense.
Only if the MTUs on all interfaces of the routers are the same.
Otherwise you might generate a ICMP size exceeded message that
will never reach the sender, breaking Path MTU Discovery.
Mike.
--
"I think...I think it's in my basement. Let me go upstairs and check."
-- M.C. Escher (1898-1972)
