[41472] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: end2end? (was: RE: Where NAT disenfranchises the end-user ...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Gifford)
Mon Sep 10 16:49:53 2001
X-Delivered-To: nanog@merit.edu
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Scott Gifford <sgifford@tir.com>
Date: 10 Sep 2001 16:49:28 -0400
In-Reply-To: miquels@cistron-office.nl's message of "Mon, 10 Sep 2001 20:31:03 +0000 (UTC)"
Message-ID: <lyzo82u5yf.fsf@gfn.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
miquels@cistron-office.nl (Miquel van Smoorenburg) writes:
> 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.
Not to get involved in the RFC1918 for routers topic again, but the
NAT discussions here got me wondering if much of this could be solved
by having an edge router translate all of the internal router-network
addresses to some constant, real address. Setting aside opinions
about the brokenness of NAT, can anybody think of anything this would
break?
-----ScottG.
