[59903] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: rfc1918 ignorant (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen J. Wilcox)
Thu Jul 24 06:23:27 2003
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:22:49 +0100 (BST)
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>
To: Haesu <haesu@towardex.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20030724000945.GB57200@scylla.towardex.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Haesu wrote:
> Well, if uBR showing RFC1918 address out on the traceroute is an issue, why not
> just reverse the way its configured?
>
> Put RFC1918 as secondary, and put the routable addr as primary. Either way, it
> should work w/o issues, right?
Hmm this could affect routing protocols which use the primary address..
> I know quite a few people who purposely put a non-routable IP (whether it be
> 1918 or RIR-registered block) as primary on their interface, and use routable
> IP as secondary. Their reason for doing this is to somewhat "hide" their
> router's real interface IP from showing up in traceroute.. Well, it wouldn't
> completely 'hide' it, but to a certain level of degree, it probably does...
Right but this one benefit doesnt make right the wrongs!
I guess one thing you could do (if you really wanted to implement hacks) is to
use the rfc1918 space on your routers and then nat them to a global ip at your
borders.. achieves all your goals anyhow (not that i'd recommend it ;)
